Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Corus(Llanwern)

Mr. Damian Green: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the future of the Corus steelworks plant at Llanwern. [146520]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): During the past weeks, I have of course discussed the future of Llanwern with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), and that of the steel industry generally with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. In addition, I have twice met Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corus.
I have to tell the House that the Government have not been given any detail about the forthcoming restructuring of the British steel industry, much of which is, of course, based in Wales. The company has not engaged with the Government or with the National Assembly. I regret that and urge Corns to recognise the record of our steelworks and our steelworkers and not to take any short-term decision which would have devastating effects on our communities.

Mr. Green: The Secretary of State paints a very disturbing picture. Will he acknowledge that some of the problems—only some, I agree—that have led to this terrible crisis are the result of explicit Government policies, which have led to business rates being too high; the climate change levy, which particularly affects steelworks; and the web of bureaucracy and interference that they have tied around manufacturing industry? There are clearly faults on many sides in this terrible crisis. Will he accept responsibility for the fact that the Government have caused some of the problems that are presenting such a terrible prospect for the steel industry in Wales?

Mr. Murphy: I certainly do not accept that. I doubt whether many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will lose their jobs in the next few days; many hundreds,

if not thousands, of my constituents certainly will. I strongly reject the points that he has made. Let me tell him that I have met the chairman of Corns, and none of the points to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in respect of which we have made some representations and changes—for example, rates in Wales—would make any difference whatever to the decisions that Corns proposes to take in the next couple of days. That is what the chairman of Corns said. He said that he intends to base his decision on the restructuring of the steel industry, not on whether the company is paying too much in rates in Cardiff, Llanwern or wherever. That is not the case.
In fact, Corns has been unmoved by any offer of help whatever. The company is intent on making its decisions entirely on its own. I repeat that our steelworkers are the best in Europe; they produce the highest output per employee and our Welsh plants are the most efficient and productive in the world. In 1998–99 alone, they increased their productivity from 533 to 571 tonnes per person, which is well above that of any other country in the whole of Europe.
The devastating effects of what might happen in the restructuring will fall on my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and, as I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, but right across Wales—north and south—the effects of the decision will be calamitous. It is a decision entirely made by the company, based on what I fear are short-term considerations.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does Brian Moffat's contemptible refusal even to consider the offer from a consortium to take over Llanwern prove the reasons behind his plans? The decision is nothing to do with the marvellous productivity at Llanwern, which is at least 20 per cent. better than the Dutch arm of the business; it is entirely about the fact that he said, "We don't want more competition." The "we" that he was referring to is Corm after the assets have been stripped from Llanwern and the hard-won contracts that have been earned there are handed over to the Dutch arm of the industry. If the decision is taken, it will be enormously damaging to a bedrock industry that has served Newport, Wales and the United Kingdom for many years. That will be an act of industrial vandalism. Can we not impose some common sense on the company and make it realise that it has a responsibility to Newport, to Wales and to the work force of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He worked for many years in the Llanwern steelworks, so he is perfectly aware of that plant's efficient record. I wrote to Sir Brian Moffat to tell him that the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation bid had been made and that Corus should take the bid seriously. The company has rejected the bid, but I hope that it does not reject the vote of confidence in the Llanwern steelworks that the bid undoubtedly represented. It was a vote of confidence in the workers, in the management and in the efficiency of the plant. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Conservatives are hardly in a position to criticise, given that they presided over the


largest loss of steel jobs in the history of Wales? Some 35,000 to 40,000 jobs were lost under their leadership. Furthermore, does he agree that it is not the time for any one party in Westminster or Cardiff to attempt to score cheap political points when the Welsh economy stands to lose thousands of jobs? Does he agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that the Welsh Assembly has as loud a voice as possible to influence the decisions of that company?

Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It certainly is not the time to start making party political points about the future of the steel industry, particularly when Corns has said that whatever any Government could do will have no effect on the decision that the company is likely to take. All of us in Wales—whatever party we represent—must fear that 5,000 or 6,000 direct jobs could be put at risk. In addition to those, literally thousands of indirect jobs in all sorts of industries and services will be affected. It will be devastating news for Wales if what is predicted comes about. Once again, I appeal to Corns, if it has such decisions in mind, to rethink them.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Secretary of State may be aware that, on the day that Corns was formed, I received a call from its managing director, Tony Vickers, to tell me that there was no threat to jobs in Ebbw Vale and that the plant was secure. If we are to believe the serious press, that plant faces closure. We are told that redundancies will take place in Corns because of financial problems. If this is so, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that, since it was set up, Corns has handed out £700 million to its shareholders, appropriated £900 million from the workers' pension fund, wasted £135 million by buying companies abroad and given millions of pounds to sacked chief executives and massive wage increases to former Dutch managers? Is he surprised at what is happening to the industry and the steelworkers, given that Sir Brian Moffat has said that he was interested not in making steel but only in making money?

Mr. Speaker: May I appeal for very brief questions?

Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He knows that I worked in Ebbw Vale from 1971 until I came to the House. When I first started working in that town, more than 10,000 people worked in the steel industry. Today, there are fewer than 1,000 working in the industry, and the loss of those jobs to the people of Blaenau Gwent would be catastrophic. I know that, and I also know that the production and efficiency of the works at Ebbw Vale are second to none. With my hon. Friend, I hope and wish that any decision that is taken in the next couple of days will not close down that very efficient plant.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I join the Secretary of State in deploring the shameful way in which Corns has refused to listen to its work force and refused to listen to representations from all political parties in Wales. However, although the axe is being wielded by Corns, the death sentence was passed by his Government and their attitude to manufacturing. There has been a lack of clarity on the future of the euro and a refusal to put forward regional fiscal policies, and the Government need to send

out messages on those issues. Does he accept that the decision is a wake-up call to his Government to get manufacturing right in Wales and in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Murphy: Let me repeat what I have said already to the House. On all the occasions that I and the First Secretary have met Sir Brian, no blame has been attached to any Government or any Government policies for the steel industry. The hon. Gentleman knows that the relationship between the euro and the pound has improved and that Corns has benefited to the tune of many tens of millions of pounds in the past few weeks. However, it has already said publicly and privately that that issue is not the reason for the restructuring that now faces us. There are all sorts of factors, but the principal one is that the company wants to slim down its manufacturing base in the United Kingdom. We are asking Corns to think again, realise its commitments to our communities and ensure that its policy is based on long-term consideration of the economy and on its own prospects. Its decisions should not be based on short-termism, as they are currently.

Mr. Barry Jones: Shotton steelworkers thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for what they have done to help them. However, has the First Secretary told Sir Brian Moffat in any of their meetings about the deep anxieties of the Shotton work force, who fear both closure and the loss of their cold strip mill, where 300 jobs are at stake? The Shotton work force are one of the most magnificent of their kind in western Europe. We could not suffer any more job losses after experiencing Europe's biggest redundancy in 1980—a redundancy that was, incidentally, implemented by the Conservative party.

Mr. Murphy: First, I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that my right hon. Friend has done on behalf of his steelworkers and the communities in Shotton and in Alyn and Deeside generally. I was with him not so very long ago at the steelworks. I have no doubt that the First Secretary has stressed in his meetings with Corus and others the importance of recognising that the Welsh Assembly and the Government are intent on trying to ensure that all the United Kingdom's steelworks, including those in north Wales, are saved from destruction.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I, too, call on Sir Brian Moffat to think again about the enormous impact that the job losses would have not only in Llanwern, but throughout the whole of Wales. Indeed, devastating rippling effects would be felt not only throughout Wales, but in every part of the United Kingdom. Sir Brian Moffat would tear the guts out of steel in Wales if he closed Llanwern. I applaud any action taken by the Secretary of State and other Ministers in negotiating with Corns to ensure that the jobs remain safe in Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Brian Moffat's comment that business rates had no effect on the company's decision. I understand, however, that Corns made representations to the National Assembly for Wales many months ago about the enormous impact of the business rates. Has the right hon. Gentleman made


representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister suggesting that the climate change levy be scrapped?

Mr. Murphy: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to ensuring that we work together on the matter and ask Corns to rethink what it has in mind. He referred to negotiations, but no negotiations have occurred between Corns and the Government or the National Assembly for Wales. Our meetings have dealt only with general policy and there have been no discussions on the detail of whatever announcements await us. On the other issues that he mentioned, I told the House earlier about our suggestion to Corns that we could negotiate on matters such as business rates. Those matters were not taken into account, however, and are not relevant to the decision making of Corns. I wish that they were.

Mr. Evans: It is obvious that Corus cannot escape blame for the way in which it is handling its decision. For those who are waiting for proposals at Llanwern and other steelworks throughout Wales, the company's indecision must be torture. I implore Sir Brian Moffat to sit at the table and negotiate in the long-term interests of the Welsh steel industry and those who have the skills to work in it, to ensure a viable future. Will the Secretary of State implore the Prime Minister himself to become directly involved with the steel crisis? Will he tell the House exactly what direct action the Prime Minister has taken so far to try to save the jobs? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, the House must settle down. There is far too much noise.

Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, of course, already met Sir Brian Moffat, only a week ago. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the First Secretary and I have also met Sir Brian. We will continue to meet, but there is no point in having meetings unless the company is prepared to talk about reality. In the meetings that have so far been held, I fear that there have been no concrete negotiations whatever.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I implore Corns to ensure that when it next meets my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or myself, it discusses details and restructuring proposals. Perhaps then it will realise that what it has in mind will have devastating effects on my constituents and those of many other hon. Members.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Following the unusually long delay in making the announcement, and given the great importance to Wales of the steel industry, will my right hon. Friend request that a delegation of Members be present at the board meeting where the decisions are made, so that we can put the arguments for keeping the steel industry in Wales going?

Mr. Murphy: I shall certainly make that point to Corns and to others engaged in the process. However, if Corus's record of engagement so far is anything to go by, it is unlikely to accede to that or any other request. It is disgraceful that a major public company such as this simply is not willing to listen to the leading elected Members representing the people of the country.

Unemployment

Mr. Graham Brady: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on unemployment in Wales. [146522]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the First Minister, and I hold regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, when we discuss a wide range of issues including unemployment levels in Wales.
The Government's continued firm handling of their sound economic policy has seen a significant reduction in the number of people claiming benefits in Wales, with a fall in the claimant count from 4.7 per cent. in December 1999 to 4.3 per cent. in December 2000.

Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his reply, although it was somewhat selective. He knows, as I do, that unemployment in Wales is rising, and with manufacturing in Wales now under threat, there is a danger that it may rise further. Will he and the Secretary of State, who appear to be the only people in the country who do not recognise that the climate change levy will hurt the British steel industry, make urgent representations to the Government to try to ensure that that damaging tax is scrapped?

Mr. Hanson: I hate to disparage the hon. Gentleman's facts, but since the general election youth unemployment in Wales has fallen by three quarters and long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. I will take no lessons on tax from the hon. Gentleman. The Government are committed to tackling unemployment. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that unemployment in Altrincham and Sale, West has fallen by 52 per cent. since the general election.

Mr. Allan Rogers: During the devolution debate, the nationalists and the Liberals said that people overseas were queueing up to invest in Wales as soon as the Welsh Assembly was established. That has been shown to be patent nonsense. Who is responsible for an employment and industrial strategy in Wales? Is it his office, the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Development Agency, training and enterprise councils or local government?

Mr. Hanson: There is a partnership agreement between the National Assembly—which is responsible for the Welsh Development Agency—my right hon. Friend, myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and that is achieving results. As I said, there has been a 60 per cent. fall in long-term unemployment and a fall of three quarters in youth unemployment. Online finance enterprise has created 400 jobs in south Wales, and Wireless Systems has created 250 jobs in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That demonstrates that our policies are working.

Mr. David Prior: In the Government's discussions with Corus, did they ask its chairman, in the event that Llanwern closes, how much of Llanwern's


capacity could be made at Port Talbot and how much would be transferred to Corus's plant at Ijmuiden in Holland?

Mr. Hanson: We have met Corus, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there has been little discussion with the company about the details of its package, about which it has kept quiet. We deplore the fact that it has not given information to the Government. There are still opportunities for Corus to discuss proposals with the Government, and we would welcome that.

Mr. Martin Caton: The good news that my hon. Friend has given the House about employment in Wales is obviously right, but I know that he will appreciate that it is of little comfort to the workers at Valeo Climate Control in my constituency, who learned that the French-owned company intends to close that plant by July. The work force are gutted; they have done everything and more in recent years to improve productivity. They are now recognised by Valeo as a centre of excellence in terms of productivity, quality and flexibility. Will my hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet a delegation of hon. Members who represent workers at Valeo and representatives of the work force at Valeo to discuss saving those jobs?

Mr. Hanson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) to discuss the situation at Valeo. I am saddened by the announcement that 337 jobs will be lost. I believe that production will be maintained until the end of July, and I am hopeful that the Welsh Development Agency will be able to pursue with the company the possibility of a new buyer for the site in the near future. I give my hon. Friend the commitment that we will meet him.

Mr. Robert Walter: We have rightly spent more than 20 minutes speaking about Llanwern, but another major public company, Dairy Crest, today announced the loss of 800 jobs, including 270 at Marshfield in Cardiff and 270 at Carmarthen. Last Friday, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) pointed out, the closure of Valeo's plant at Gorseinon was announced, with the loss of about 330 jobs. On Monday last week, Dewhirst announced that 300 jobs were likely to go at Fishguard, after announcing 175 job losses at Lampeter.
The falling trend of unemployment that the Government inherited is rapidly disappearing. Every day we hear of job losses in Wales. What are the Minister and the Secretary of State saying to the Lib-Lab coalition in Cardiff, which seems to include the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), judging by his earlier question? What are Ministers saying to the Lib-Lab coalition about the way in which it is presiding over what was a good news story about jobs in Wales?

Mr. Hanson: Obviously, I regret the decision announced today about the Carmarthen and Marshfield plants, but it will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that the same company announced on the same day that there is to be an expansion at Wrexham, with a further 175 jobs

I say sincerely to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to creating employment. Unemployment is falling in Wales. We have the right economic conditions. There will always be ups and downs in the employment market, and we regret that. We will work with companies and with my hon. Friends in the Administration in Cardiff to create employment. What will damage employment prospects in Wales are severe cuts in public spending from the Conservatives, the madness of their economic policies and the continuation of what they did for 18 years.

Health and Education

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with Secretaries in the Welsh Assembly about health and education spending in Wales. [146523]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Health and Education Secretaries to discuss health and education issues in Wales. Spending in both of those areas is often part of our agenda.

Mr. Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received representations from head teachers in my constituency, members of staff and governors, who believe that they have been unfairly treated in the payment, particularly the direct payment, of moneys to schools in Wales? They look across the border and see large sums being spent directly in schools in England, and they believe that they have been unfairly treated. Will my hon. Friend raise these matters with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning when he next meets her?

Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The £1.35 billion extra for health and the £551 million for education that the Government have given the National Assembly are significant. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the expenditure and distribution of those funds, and I will discuss the matter with the Minister in the Assembly shortly, when I next meet her.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Following the decision of the Scottish Executive last week about the funding of social care for the elderly, what discussions has the Minister held with the Welsh Assembly and Ministers in Wales about the unfairness to elderly people in Wales, let alone those in England?

Mr. Hanson: Those matters will form part of our on-going discussions with the National Assembly about the implications of the Scottish decision. The £551 million for education and £1.35 billion for health that the Government have allocated would not be available if the hon. Gentleman's party came to power. Let us not talk about semantics. His party is committed to cutting that resource. Our party is committed to investing that money. Whatever else happens with the health service, under this Government there is more money in Wales for the health service there.

Mr. Chris Ruane: What measures can my hon. Friend take to ensure that education in Wales serves industry so that we have people with the right skills to take advantage of the jobs that will come to Wales?

Mr. Hanson: I know that my hon. Friend battles hard for his constituency and for employment. Local authorities will use the more than £500 million extra for education in Wales to build up skills. I reiterate the important point that the money would not be available if the official Opposition were in government. They would cut those resources for Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ql. [146550] Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Ladyman: Yesterday, we had to confront the pain of the parents whose children were involved in the organ-stripping scandal at Alder Hey hospital. Does that not put in perspective some of the trivia in which we politicians sometimes get bogged down? After the malpractice at Bristol royal infirmary, the horrors of Harold Shipman and the scandalous events about which we heard yesterday, should we not focus on the need to drive through reform and rebuild public confidence in clinical practice in this country?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. All hon. Members will have been appalled by the findings of the report published yesterday, and I condemn, without reservation, the practices at Alder Hey, which have added to the grief and pain of parents and relatives who had suffered enough through losing their children. Unfortunately, the chief medical officer's census of organ retention shows that Alder Hey was not alone in that practice. It is therefore essential that we introduce measures to amend the Human Tissue Act 1961 to clarify the basis on which consent is given, ensure that organs and tissue are specified, and make it a criminal offence to ignore the response of relatives.
As we focus on those appalling events and take action to ensure that they are not repeated, we should also pay tribute to the work that the vast majority of doctors, surgeons and nurses undertake day in, day out in our health service. We should not allow appalling circumstances to disguise the fact that, in the main, they provide a fantastic service to the people of this country.

Mr. William Hague: I concur with the Prime Minister's condemnation of the practices at

Alder Hey and look forward to the introduction of new measures. I also congratulate and pay tribute to the great majority of health service staff.
Let us consider another pledge that the Prime Minister made in recent years. He promised that the new asylum laws that came into force last year would
deter the bogus asylum seeker."[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 386.]
Does he accept that, once again, he has failed miserably to deliver?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not. Decisions are now outstripping applications for the first time. Last year, 110,000 decisions were made. The latest asylum figures, which have just been published, show a sharp reduction in applications. It is correct that large numbers of asylum applications have been made here, as they have elsewhere in Europe. However, the Conservative party opposes the important measures that we have introduced to deal with that. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the matter, but he always refuses to tackle it.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister says that there has been a reduction in the number of applications. However, the figures that were published last Thursday constitute an all-time record of nearly 100,000. It is a good job that he does not give such answers to his press secretary; he would get the sack these days.
On the Government's figures, unfounded asylum applications are running at 78 per cent. of a hugely increased number. The Government said that they would disperse 65,000 people, but they dispersed only a fraction of that number. The voucher system has failed and a panic review is under way. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the latest United Nations figures show that more asylum seekers came to Britain than any other European country last year?

The Prime Minister: What I said was that the last month's figures showed a sharp fall, which they do. However, it is not the case that Britain is the only country suffering an increase in the numbers of asylum seekers. Between January and October last year, Ireland had a 65 per cent. increase, France a 30 per cent. increase, Sweden a 28 per cent. increase, Belgium a 20 per cent. increase and the Netherlands a 15 per cent. increase.
The question is what measures are necessary to reduce those figures. We have introduced two measures. One is to take away cash benefits for asylum seekers; the other is to make sure that those who bring asylum seekers in, in the backs of lorries and by other means, are subject to criminal penalty. The two measures that we have introduced are important in reducing the number of asylum seekers. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his policy to get rid of both those measures?

Mr. Hague: It is our policy to take a much tougher approach, and the Prime Minister knows it. Normally, he seeks to amend his answers by going to Hansard afterwards. He does not normally amend them in his very next answer, claiming that he had said that it was only in the last month that the number of applications had fallen, but omitting to say that the number of applications in the last quarter was higher than in the same quarter of the


previous year, and omitting to say that in the last quarter, the figure was higher than in any quarter of last year, and that the number of applications is, therefore, rising.
The reason for that increase is that the Government have been unfailingly weak. They have promised new laws, but the only result is that the crisis has deepened. By allowing Britain to become a soft touch for those who wish to abuse the system, and by making life much more difficult for genuine refugees by failing to deal with the problem, has not the Prime Minister once again been all spin and no delivery?

The Prime Minister: First, let us deal with the right hon. Gentleman's allegation that we are a soft touch for asylum seekers. We have taken two measures to ensure that our rules are tougher. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted tough action. These are the two measures: we withdraw cash benefits and we make sure that there are penalties for people bringing people into the country illegally. A third measure that we have introduced is to increase dramatically the number of people dealing with claims, which is why the backlog has dropped from more than 100,000 to a little more than 60,000, and why the number of decisions being made is now higher than the number of fresh applications coming in. Those are the three measures. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a serious policy debate about how we ensure that people do not abuse the system, will he say which of those measures he supports and which he does not?

Ms Joan Ryan: My constituents are well aware of the investment that the Government have made in the national health service, because our hospital, Chase Farm hospital, was under threat of closure for 10 years under the previous Government. It is now secure and has a newly refurbished accident and emergency department. However, it has many old buildings that need replacing. Everyone except members of the shadow Cabinet thinks that those are important issues, and we fear that if the matter were left to them, we should never see a new building. For the peace of mind of my constituents and many others, will the Prime Minister re-state the commitment of this Government and any future Labour Government to continuing to invest in the fabric of our hospitals

The Prime Minister: I certainly will. We will continue the record investment going into the health service, which is ensuring that accident and emergency departments up and down the country are being refurbished and that more nurses are coming into the health service.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made an interesting speech yesterday. I do not doubt that hon. Members know that he has been saying that he now wants to match our commitments on public spending. He wants to match our commitments on health, education and so on. This is what he said yesterday:
At the next election Labour will be proposing large increases in public spending.
That is dead right. There will be spending on nurses, doctors, teachers and police. He goes on—[Interruption.]

I know that Opposition Members do not want to listen to this, but they are going to have to. The right hon. Gentleman goes on:
We have argued repeatedly that these increases are unsustainable.
If they are unsustainable, how is he going to match them?

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Moving on from asylum and immigration and this afternoon's latest dose of pebbledash populism from those on the Tory Front Bench, will the Prime Minister turn his attention to long-term care for the elderly? In Scotland, long-term care in the home will be provided free. Why is he prepared to go on justifying charging people for that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The devolved Parliament and the devolved Executive are perfectly entitled to decide to provide that free care. We believe that the money would be better spent elsewhere in the national health service. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman only that we cannot spend the same money twice.

Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister must acknowledge, however, that the Sutherland report, which led to that policy initiative, was UK-wide. If it is good enough for one part of the UK, why is it not good enough for the rest?

The Prime Minister: That is a difficult argument to use in respect of devolution as people are perfectly entitled to use their money and overall resources in different ways. We have decided that it is best to have free nursing care, which will mean improvements for many thousands of people in our country. The question is simply one of resources. In the end, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman many times, we have to decide how best to spend the money. We believe that it would be better spent on other things in the NHS, particularly as about seven out of 10 of those who receive personal care already receive assistance from the state. For that reason, we believe that the additional money—it would cost about £1 billion to achieve free care in Britain as a whole—would be better spent elsewhere in the NHS. Again, the devolved Executive are entitled to create such a difference. That is the consequence of devolution.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to look into the proposal that I put to him recently about growing surpluses in the miners' pension fund and the amount that has gone to the Government since the Tory privatisation of the industry in the mid-1990s? Will he have a look at the matter with a view to ensuring that, in agreement with the trustees of the miners' pension fund, a lump sum should be paid to every single retired miner and widow? That would put clear blue water between us and the Tories. When they were in power, they shut every pit in Derbyshire and many other coalfields, and they would not pay the miners a penny piece.

The Prime Minister: Under the mineworkers' pension scheme, the income of its members has risen by about 30 per cent., but there are provisions that protect the Government, who have a contingent liability of, I think,


£20 billion under the scheme. I will certainly look carefully into what my hon. Friend has said, but I am afraid that I can give him no guarantees.

St. Ives

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): When he next intends to visit the St. Ives constituency.

The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to come to Cornwall, but I regret that I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. George: That is a pity, because we would love to celebrate jointly the memory of succeeding in achieving objective 1 status for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Is the Prime Minister aware that, a year after the start date, not a penny piece of objective 1 money has gone to any capital projects and that local people are increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress, red tape, the complexity, the meddlesome quangos and unnecessary Government intervention? Will he please intervene on our behalf, cut through the nonsense, and give us the money and the power to get on with delivering the sustainable economic development that Cornwall so justly deserves?

The Prime Minister: It says here that objective 1 programmes have got off to a good start, which seems rather inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has said. As I understand it, the first wave of projects has already been approved and announced, and will total some £7 million. In the end, it is obviously for local partnerships to make programmes work because of the procedures that have to be gone through. Money is coming from the Government and the European Union and it is, of course, important that it should be sensibly spent. The Government are making every effort to encourage local partnerships, but it is up to them to set the pace on the ground.

Ms Candy Atherton: I too would welcome my right hon. Friend to St. Ives and west Cornwall.
It was, of course, the Labour Government who delivered objective 1 status for Cornwall, and it is the Labour Government who are ensuring that it will succeed. I cannot think of two things that the Liberal Democrats have done for Cornwall; can my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being infinitely more on-message than I was a moment ago. Of course, she is absolutely right. We are delighted that we have secured objective 1 status not just for Cornwall but for other parts of the country. That was part of a settlement made in Berlin, which meant that the British rebate was protected and will also mean that, for the first time since we joined the European Union, our contributions over the coming years will be more like those of France, Italy and similar countries. We protected the British national interest, but we also secured a very good deal for Cornwall.

Engagements

Mr. John Hayes: Two weeks ago, in answer to a question from

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister made a promise to the House. He pledged that he would introduce legislation in this Session—those are the words he used: "this Session"—to make adoption easier. Can he tell us which aspects of his White Paper on adoption require primary legislation, and when the House can expect to see it?

The Prime Minister: The short answer is that I cannot say offhand exactly which aspects require primary legislation and which do not require legislation. I can say, however, that we can push ahead with those that do not require legislation. In respect of those that do, I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to present proposals shortly. I very much hope that those proposals will have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr. Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend has strongly supported medical research, arguing that patients should not be denied its benefits. Is he aware, however, that of the 25 million people in Africa with HIV and AIDS, only one in a thousand can gain access to the life-prolonging drugs created by that research, because they are simply too expensive? Does he agree that the pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to make such drugs available to the people of Africa at a price that they can afford?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may know that the Chancellor is looking at ways of actively encouraging the process, and ensuring that vaccines are available to people in Africa at a reasonable cost. It is absolutely terrifying to think that 95 per cent. of those with HIV live in developing countries, and that 70 per cent. are now in sub-Saharan Africa.
We are contributing to the effort to fund the process of finding a vaccine. We have invested some £14 million in the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and are also putting money into the treatment of other diseases in Africa such as malaria and tuberculosis. Moreover, as my hon. Friend will know, under this Government, the amount of aid and development money has been considerably increased. I should like us to take a range of initiatives, not just nationally but internationally through the G8 and the European Union, so that the scandal of HIV-AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa can be regarded as a matter that the whole international community should combat.

Mr. Hague: Was the Prime Minister's press secretary speaking for the Prime Minister last Friday when he gave his extraordinary briefing against the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?

The Prime Minister: Of course, he always speaks for me. I should add, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should not believe all the representations that he has read in the press.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister must be losing his grip on reality as well as losing his grip on his Cabinet. Given that he praised the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the House last Wednesday but then sent out his press secretary on Friday to rubbish the right hon. Gentleman are we to understand that he did not have the


courage to express his views in the House, or are we to understand that the terms used about the former Minister, who was described as "detached", "lacking focus" and being in the same mental state as the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), were meant to be complimentary?

The Prime Minister: He did not say that last bit at all, and he also paid tribute to the former Northern Ireland Secretary.

Mr. Hague: So it was all meant to be complimentary. No doubt when the press secretary described the Chancellor as having psychological flaws, that was also meant to be complimentary, and constituted a great tribute.
The Prime Minister looks hurt because we have dared to raise the issue that has consumed his Government for the past week—which has involved the sacking, at the instigation of his press secretary, of a Cabinet Minister who has since been rubbished by half the Cabinet. The Government have spent the last week in civil war. The Prime Minister has been rubbishing the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, while the rest of the Cabinet dine out on crocodile tears and champagne.
Is this not the real verdict on this Government, without an inquiry? A Government of spin and dishonesty—guilty. A culture of cronyism and favours—guilty. A Prime Minister who promised a new type of politics and has once again failed to deliver—guilty.

The Prime Minister: Shall I tell the House what the Conservative party is really angry about? Last week, my official spokesman compared Conservative economic policy to that of Mickey Mouse. I want to make it clear that he has been reprimanded strongly for that. We are a fan of Mickey Mouse. It was wrong to compare Conservative economic policy to that of Mickey Mouse.
I know exactly why the Leader of the Opposition wants to go back to the matter that he has raised. We have done a little research on the questions that he has asked in the past few months. He has asked one on Northern Ireland, two on adoption, four on the Hindujas—and another three,I suppose, today—seven on the dome and 14 on Europe. On education, he has asked none; on pensions, none; on transport, none; on jobs, none; and on poverty, none. How many has he asked on the countryside, the issue that Conservative Members care about so much? The answer, again, is a big zero 
The Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing to say about any serious policy, is raising those types of issues.
I am not hurt by that. [Interruption.] No, I am not hurt by it. I am delighted by it because it shows that, when it comes to jobs, the economy, schools, hospitals and crime, we win and he loses.

Mr. Marsha Singh: Will the Prime Minister join me in extending his profoundest sympathy to my constituents and to others in the United Kingdom who have lost family and friends in the greatest earthquake disaster in Indian history, a terrible human disaster? Although I welcome what the Government have already done—£10 million in aid has been made

available—will he assure me and the House that he will monitor the situation and that, if more needs to be done, more will be done?

The Prime Minister: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Department for International Development has already reacted quickly not merely in terms of the aid that has been made available—some of it has already been passed on—but in respect of the people. It has attempted, with other countries, to ensure that we send out teams of experts, people who can help with the terrible disaster. Our deepest sympathy goes to the people in India who have been affected and to relatives and friends not just there, but here too.

Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Prime Minister aware that, since he took office, in the county of Suffolk, there are 40 fewer police officers, crime has risen by 20 per cent. and, most horrifically and shockingly, crimes of violence are up 60 per cent? Only last week, the small post office in my rural Suffolk village was held up with almost unimaginable savagery. That is why so many of my constituents feel that the Prime Minister has let them down and that he misled them at the last general election.

The Prime Minister: Of course, it is appalling when a robbery takes place, as happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As he knows, we are putting in more money to fund more officers on the beat up and down the country, which is why, over the next few years, we will increase the number of police to the largest ever in this country. We are managing to do that only because of the extra investment that we are putting in.
There will come a point when the Conservative party will have to choose between the two economic policies that it is now running. One is to tell everyone that it will spend more money. The other is to tell everyone that it will spend less. I think that most people know what Conservative policy is. We had cuts and privatisation before, and that is what we will get again. Until the Conservatives make a definitive statement on their economic intentions, we cannot take the complaints of people such as the hon. Gentleman seriously.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Lancashire are very appreciative of the orders that the Government have placed and the commitment they have shown to BAE Systems? Unfortunately, however, the loyal and highly skilled and motivated work force—who lobbied this Government and previous Governments to get those contracts—are being rewarded with thousands of job losses. That is not acceptable. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can use his good offices to meet the management of BAE Systems and the trade unions to see whether we can get that injustice reversed.

The Prime Minister: I understand that there have been no specific announcements of redundancies. However, because of our concern about some of the press reports, meetings were held between my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness and the company. We shall ensure that we keep closely in touch. I certainly wish to pay tribute to the enormous work and skill of my hon. Friend's constituents and the many people at BAE Systems who


do an excellent job. BAE Systems is a very fine company and we certainly wish to see people continue being employed there.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Prime Minister think it fair that elderly people needing social care in England and Wales will be disadvantaged compared with those in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I am just about prepared to wear that from the Liberal Democrats, but may I remind the hon. Lady that she supported a Government who, for 18 years, could have done all that on nursing and personal care, but did neither? We are introducing free nursing care for the first time in this country. As I have just explained, we do not believe it right to spend £1 billion on personal care when we think it better and fairer to use that money elsewhere in the health service. It is up to the Scottish Executive to decide how they wish to use their money.
The one thing that I would say to the hon. Lady, as I have just said to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), is that we have been asking Conservative Members for a commitment that they will at least match us on social service funding. We still have not had a commitment from them. If the Conservatives were to return to power, people would not only not receive free personal care, they would not receive free nursing care either.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Many of us know of constituents whose daily lives are threatened by disruptive youths or by nuisance neighbours. I therefore welcome the Government's introduction and implementation of parenting orders, which are making a real difference to many communities across the country. However, may I ask my right hon. Friend what we can do to encourage local authorities to use antisocial behaviour orders more as a tool of intervention than as a weapon of last resort?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Antisocial behaviour orders, where they have been used, have been very popular indeed. That is because there is nothing worse for a family than living next door to people who are engaged in antisocial or criminal behaviour. It is essential that we take action, and I think that the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are very important. Moreover, as a result of legislation that we plan to introduce in this Session, a further battery of weapons including fixed-penalty notices will be available to police. We are quite determined to crack down on the yob culture in every way.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask the Prime Minister to look, not this afternoon but later, into

the case of Mr. Krishna Maharaj—who is black and British, and a business man who has been in jail in Florida for 14 years after being convicted of murder? Clive Stafford-Smith has said that, of the 300 cases that he has examined, he is most convinced of innocence in this man's case.
Will the Prime Minister help the Foreign Office in its efforts at a consular level in Florida to look into the matter of the judge who heard the first week of the case and who was taken away in shackles after being accused of taking bribes? Other questions include whether, on two occasions, state attorneys went into Mr. Maharaj's cell, effectively to ask him for a bribe, and whether the Foreign Office can take up Governor Bush's suggestion that, although he did not know about the case, he was prepared to look into it? The case has had the support of the Home Secretary, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, a former Attorney-General and the Mayor of London.

The Prime Minister: The short answer is that I do not know about that individual case. I am perfectly prepared to look into it, although that should not be taken as prejudgment of the facts. I shall look into it and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Conservative Government's decision to abolish the police housing allowance in 1994 was an act of monumental folly? It triggered quite unprecedented problems in the recruitment and retention of police officers in high-cost housing areas such as Reading, Thames Valley and elsewhere. Will he join me in questioning the wisdom of Thames Valley police authority, which has responded to the problem by flogging off 333 houses in the past six years? Furthermore, it plans to demolish 12 perfectly serviceable police houses to make way for a rifle range. Is that not simply Thatcherism gone mad?

The Prime Minister: The abolition of the housing allowance in the Metropolitan area and elsewhere, and the loss of police houses, obviously had a serious impact on police recruitment. The additional resources made available by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mean that we are able to recruit more officers, although I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern about the decision of the Thames Valley police authority.
If my hon. Friend will allow me, however, I can tell him that is not the only police service in the country that it is receiving more police officers. A press release today from the North Yorkshire police is entitled "Force Strength to Reach All Time High". It states that, as a result of the additional money that the Government are putting in, by March 2002 there will be more police officers in North Yorkshire "than ever before".

Lockerbie

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the result of the Lockerbie bombing trial.
Almost two years ago, I announced that we had secured the agreement of the Libyan Government to the surrender of the two men charged with the Lockerbie bombing. That agreement brought an end to almost a decade of diplomatic stalemate. It was made possible by a unique legal innovation—a trial before Scottish judges under Scots law in a third country.
I want to record our gratitude to the Government of the Netherlands and to their local authorities for their ready and full co-operation in making available the excellent facilities at Camp Zeist. Their co-operation has confirmed the reputation of the Netherlands as a seat of international justice. I have today written to the Dutch Foreign Minister formally recording our thanks.
The whole House will wish to express its appreciation of the work of the police in what has been one of the longest and widest investigations in British history. The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and the other police forces that co-operated in the inquiry can take credit for the evidence that was brought to court.
The trial has been open and its proceedings have been punctilious. It is widely agreed that it has proved to be the fair trial that we promised.
The panel of Scottish judges has now returned its verdict. The judges unanimously found guilty Mr. Al Megrahi, an official of the Libyan intelligence service. They acquitted Mr. Fhimah. We accept the verdicts of the court. Mr. Al Megrahi is reported to intend to appeal. The House will understand that, in the circumstances, I will not comment on the substance of the legal arguments. However, the House will wish to know what international action the Government intend to take in the light of these verdicts.
The initiative to hold the trial at Camp Zeist was taken by Britain and secured by agreement with the Governments of the Netherlands, the United States and Libya. However, we made those arrangements in accordance with the resolution of the UN Security Council—a resolution that is binding on all member states.
Libya has complied with some of the requirements of the Security Council, such as handing over the two suspects. In the light of the guilty verdict, we will expect the Libyan Government to fulfil the remaining requirements. We therefore require Libya to accept responsibility for the act of its official who has been convicted. We also require Libya to pay compensation to the relatives of the victims.
Before coming to the House this afternoon, I spoke by telephone to Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. We both are clear that Libya must now fulfil the requirements of the Security Council in full, and we both committed our Governments to close co-operation to achieve those common objectives. I shall be able to continue that consultation with Colin Powell when I meet him in Washington next week.
It is also in Libya's own interests to be seen to co-operate fully with the Security Council. In the light of the conviction of one of their senior intelligence officials,

Libya's leaders need to take every opportunity to prove to the international community that they have definitively renounced terrorism and will abide by international law.
The Lockerbie bombing stands among the most brutal acts of mass murder. The community of Lockerbie suffered a sudden and devastating tragedy. I spoke after the verdicts to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who is today with the local people who have borne their tragedy with dignity.
Every passenger and crew member of Pan Am 103 was killed. That night, more than 400 parents lost a child, 76 women and men lost husbands or wives and seven children lost both parents.
Nothing can repair the loss of those who were murdered that night or remove the grief of their relatives. But today, at last, those relatives know that a fair trial in an open court has seen justice done.

Mr. Francis Maude: I am grateful o the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Today, the whole House and, I suspect, the whole country will have had in its thoughts the families who lost beloved relations and friends when Pan Am 103 was casually blown out of the sky—those who perished in the air and those whose lives ended on the ground when the name of Lockerbie became synonymous with terrorism. For those families, the intervening 12 years must have seemed an endless struggle to come to terms with the brutal and savage attack conducted for a cause 1 million miles from its victims. We should honour those families for their fortitude in loss and their tenacity in never giving up the pursuit of justice. It will be, as the Foreign Secretary says, of some limited comfort to them that today at least one of the murderers has been brought eventually to justice.
This has been from the outset a massive investigation, carried out in conditions of immense difficulty. I join the Foreign Secretary in congratulating the police and all the other authorities for what they have done and thanking the Netherlands' authorities for allowing the trial to take place there.
A number of important questions remain. Although everyone will appreciate the difficulties of reinstating sanctions against Libya, will the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be wrong at this stage to lift them? It is clear that Libya has not fully complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. We all want Libya to become a respected member of the international community, but before there can be reconciliation there must be a full acceptance of responsibility and guilt. A Libyan official has been convicted of this atrocity. It follows inescapably that the Libyan Government are implicated. For Libya to re-enter the community of civilised nations, it must unequivocally accept specific responsibility for the bombing of flight 103 as well as for the killing of WPC Fletcher. Libya, as the Foreign Secretary has said, must pay whatever compensation is ordered by the courts.
Can the Foreign Secretary be confident that the Gaddafi leopard really has changed his spots and set his face against the sponsorship of international terrorism?
On the issue of a possible public inquiry, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us today that he has not finally ruled that out. Are there any serious prospects for


further criminal proceedings? If not, surely it could help the process of reconciliation for there to be the fullest scrutiny and disclosure of these hideous events.
Will the Government undertake that Al Megrahi will neither be released early as part of some deal with Libya, nor permitted to serve part of his sentence in Libya?
This is an important step towards the conclusion of a tragic and bitter story. Of course, life will never be the same for the families of Libya's victims, but we stand ready to support the Government in their endeavours to bring about a finality that will enable those families, as much as they can, to move on, and eradicate the continuing threat of international terrorism.

Mr. Cook: May I first welcome the tone and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks? In response to his questions, I assure him and the House that there is no question of sanctions being lifted until Libya has complied in full with the requirements of previous United Nations Security Council resolutions. The sanctions cannot be lifted without the agreement of the Security Council, which requires the assent of all the permanent members. We will work closely with the United States to progress this matter within the Security Council. The two key steps that Libya must take to comply with the requirements are to accept responsibility and pay compensation. We secured both a statement of responsibility and a payment of compensation in the case of WPC Fletcher two years ago. We will be seeking to make the same progress on the Lockerbie bombing.
On Libya's actions on external terrorism, in 1992—in a statement that was made during the previous Administration—the Libyan Government renounced terrorism, but the requirement placed on them by the Security Council is to show by concrete actions that they mean that statement of renunciation. Libya's response to the verdict of guilty and the remaining requirements placed on it by the Security Council will be an important test of its commitment to abiding by international law, of which the Security Council resolution is part.
There has been no decision to rule out a public inquiry. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to reach a view on such an inquiry at this early stage, in particular, as an appeal is pending. No inquiry could commence before an appeal was concluded.
I have met relatives of those who died in Pan Am flight 103 and I am well aware of the strength of feeling among them. I have conveyed that to my colleagues the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who would have to decide on an inquiry. They will have to reflect on the strength of those feelings as against the many inquiries and the full criminal trial that have already taken place and decide whether useful information could emerge from any further inquiry at this stage.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that there will be no deal with the Libyan Government on the sentence of Mr. Al Megrahi. I do not believe that any Scottish court would wear such a deal, even if we remotely contemplated striking one. As part of the terms of the agreement in 1991, it was agreed that the full sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. At that stage, we rejected the proposal that the person responsible might be sent to a prison in a third country. The United Nations will have access to his prison, because

we have nothing to hide or to fear about the standard of Scottish prisons. I suspect that they will be better than those of Libyan prisons.
Finally, I join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing our sympathy and respect for the relatives. I pay tribute to Dr. Jim Swire and Rev. John Mosey, who have led the campaign for the relatives. It is fair to say that, without their vigilant and determined efforts, we might not be where we are today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In these early stages, is it the view of the British Government that Mr. Al Megrahi alone was responsible for conceiving and implementing that hideous crime?

Mr. Cook: No, definitely not. Indeed, the charge sheet charges him with conspiring with other persons unknown to carry out the bombing. Mr. Al Megrahi was charged along with Mr. Fhimah because they were the two named and known individuals against whom we judged we had criminal evidence to bring a charge and secure a conviction. In the case of Mr. Al Megrahi, that proved a valid judgment. If we discover criminal evidence that will enable us to charge others, we will do so.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear and helpful statement. Does he agree—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said today in the Scottish Parliament—that this trial has been a vindication not only of the Scottish system but of the international agreement to bring it about? Does he further agree that it demonstrates to international terrorists and all criminals that there is a system that can bring them to justice and secure a conviction and that they can no longer expect to get away with crimes with impunity? Does it not confirm the urgent need to follow that model and secure an agreement to set up an international criminal court?
Can the Foreign Secretary say a little more about how the verdict may affect relationships between Britain and Libya? Given that Colonel Gaddafi has at least, in principle, accepted the validity of the court and there has been some co-operation recently on the Yvonne Fletcher case, does he agree that this is the opportunity for Colonel Gaddafi to respond by acknowledging that Libyan officials were involved in that dreadful act; to apologise for the acts of terrorism that he says that he repudiates; and to be prepared to make recompense to those who have suffered so tragically? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Colonel Gaddafi should co-operate fully in any possible public inquiry? Understandably, the relatives are calling for that. Has not the pressure on the relatives been shown by the emotional reaction of Dr. Jim Swire to the verdict? I am glad to say that he has recovered, but that was a demonstration of that enormous emotional pressure.
Finally, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what co-operation the British Government would give the American relatives should they decide to pursue a civil action—or would he prefer the employment of some other method to ensure that the matter is resolved in a way that gives Libya an opportunity to prove that it wants to be treated as part of the international community, rather than being pushed further to the fringes?

Mr. Cook: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's view on Scottish justice. Indeed, during the past few days, it has


given me some satisfaction to hear a large number of people from America and other countries who attended the proceedings paying tribute to the proceedings and to the punctiliousness of the court and the panel of judges.
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the importance of an international criminal court. One of the best ways that we can prevent future atrocities is by making it clear that there is no hiding place for those who commit them. I look forward to the support—of which I am confident—of the hon. Gentleman's party when that Bill comes to the House.
On the Libyan leadership, I entirely accept—as the Libyans, too, would be wise to recognise—that, if they want to prove their new credentials and a new spirit towards the international community, the best way to do so will be by rapidly fulfilling the remaining requirements—accepting responsibility for what happened and paying compensation for it.
It is, of course, entirely up to the American relatives, or other relatives, to proceed by taking a civil action in the courts. Any initial payment of compensation must not preclude the obligation on the Libyan Government to meet an award for compensation in a future civil action.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not sheer common sense to conclude that the convicted person can hardly have acted on his own initiative and that the instructions came from the very top in Libya? Does my right hon. Friend agree that justice will be done only when those who gave the instruction for that act of mass murder are also in the dock?

Mr. Cook: I have already indicated that the charge sheet explicitly recognised that Mr. Al Megrahi did not work alone. We have no criminal evidence that we could take into court with the hope of a criminal conviction against any other individual in a fair and open trial. In the fulness of time, this result may produce other leads; if so, we shall certainly follow them up. In the meantime, whether Mr. Al Megrahi acted alone or under instruction, the Government of Libya must accept responsibility for what a senior official did. That is why we require of the Libyan Government a statement accepting responsibility, and accepting responsibility for paying compensation to those who lost relatives in that terrible atrocity.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the outcome is a vindication not only of the Scottish legal system but of those relatives such as Dr. Jim Swire, who campaigned for the third-country option long before it became Government policy? Although I realise that the Foreign Secretary has not ruled out a public inquiry and I accept his point that the time is not quite right for a decision on the matter, will he at least say that he understands the strength of the arguments made by relatives—that there are wider implications to the atrocity, which go far beyond individual guilt or innocence, and that they could usefully be explored in such a forum?

Mr. Cook: On the latter point, of course, there are issues that were not explored during the trial, because the trial focused on the particular question of guilt or

innocence. However, it should be pointed out that during the trial, we paraded much evidence and information which for 12 or 10 years previously we had been obliged to keep to ourselves because it would have compromised a trial. In addition to the trial, a fatal accident inquiry took place and the President's commission was set up in the United States.
My colleagues will need to reflect on those matters when they decide whether to order an inquiry. They have not reached such a decision—nor should they until the appeal proceedings are disposed of.
I would absolutely endorse the tributes that the hon. Gentleman and others have paid to Dr. Jim Swire. I was concerned today to hear that he had collapsed, and delighted to hear that he had recovered. It has been a very gruelling 12 years for him and the other relatives. I very much believe that, when they have recovered from an undoubtedly emotional occasion, they can take some satisfaction from knowing that they have played their part in seeing justice being done for their loved ones.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my right hon. Friend take time to remind the House that at the stage when the trial was agreed on, the Libyan Government made it plain that they would accept absolutely and completely the outcome of the Scottish judicial system? It is important to remind the House and the Libyan Government of that statement.
Will my right hon. Friend thank the League of Arab States, which played such a big part not only in impressing on the Libyans the fact that, if they wanted to return to the international fold, they would have to accept requests to give these individuals up for trial, but in convincing the United Kingdom Government and the international community that the individuals would indeed be given up, enabling us to move towards establishing the court in The Hague?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right that the Government of Libya had indicated that they would accept the outcome of the trial, and I can inform the House that in the course of the day, three very senior figures in the Libyan Administration have gone public saying that they accept and respect the judgments of the court.
I take the opportunity to praise not only the League of Arab States and the Arab nations but the other international bodies that helped us to secure the trial.
I particularly mention the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who worked very hard to secure the terms under which the two men were handed over for trial. I hope to speak to Kofi Annan by telephone tomorrow, and we shall see how we can follow the matter up in the United Nations.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The news that the right hon. Gentleman has just given about the three high-ranking officials from Libya is welcome. He is probably not aware that BBC News 24 was quoting, I believe, a Deputy Foreign Minister from Libya, as saying that the result of the verdict had to be an immediate lifting of sanctions and a compensation package for the Libyan people for the effects of sanctions. May I take it that that is not the view that is coming through via


official channels? When does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate receiving an official response from the Libyan Government?

Mr. Cook: We are already in dialogue with the Libyan Government. We shall continue to be so, not only bilaterally but through the United Nations. We should not necessarily expect the two further steps that we require to take place before the conclusion of an appeal, and such an appeal may well take most of the rest of the year; but we do have a guilty verdict, and against that guilty verdict there can be no question of any compensation for Libya for the effect of sanctions, nor, until the Libyan Government comply with all the requirements of the resolutions, of a formal lifting of sanctions.

Mr. Bruce George: Will my right hon. Friend pass on from everyone in the House our congratulations not only to the police of many countries for this incredible investigation, but to those hundreds—probably thousands—of others outside the police forces who were engaged in the investigation and prosecution?
The disaster led to many changes in airline and airport security, but one suspects that after so many years, some of the memories may have been lost and some of the improvements unmade. Will my right hon. Friend give assurances to the House that he will again contact those of his colleagues, nationally and internationally, inside and outside Foreign Ministries, to evaluate whether further improvements need to be made in airport, airline and transport security? Disasters such as that at Lockerbie could well be replicated, and we do not wish to come to the House five, 10 or 20 years from now to announce the successful outcome of an investigation into another catastrophe such as the one we witnessed at Lockerbie.

Mr. Cook: I absolutely take the opportunity offered by my right hon. Friend's question to express congratulations to all those who have assisted in any way in this outcome. Many hundreds of members of the public did assist. A key part of the jigsaw was provided by a couple walking the dog on the Northumberland moors, who discovered a fragment of the bomb and who had the wisdom to retrieve it and take it to a police station, without which effort we might not be where we are today. All those who have assisted in any way are entirely entitled to their credit for their part in having secured this conviction.
On safety, we should be clear that it is of course 12 years since the Lockerbie bombing, and enormous changes have taken place in airport and airline security during that period. I am sure that my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will carefully consider the verdict, the trial and the evidence to find out whether any further lesson can be learned, but I assure the House and the public that the state of airport security is not as it was 12 years ago when the bombing took place.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Three of my constituents and the son of Mr. and Mrs. Martin Cadman were killed in the Lockerbie crash. I know from subsequent talks over many years with the Cadmans about the terrible emotional pressures that came from not knowing how the crash could have happened. The court judgment at least begins to piece together how the terrorist

route worked and, at last, international justice, based on Scottish law, has brought people to account. Will the Foreign Secretary reaffirm that he and all his European Union colleagues will continue to try to find out what else went on to enable the person who has been convicted today to carry out the atrocity? Will he reassure all the relatives that there will be unceasing liaison with the Libyan Government to try to get them to understand the human catastrophe and emotional pressure that the actions caused?

Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to maintain that pressure, through dialogue in Libya and international forums, until we ensure that we have secured an appropriate response to the terrible tragedy and the appalling mass murder that took place that night. I also have met Mr. and Mrs. Cadman and know exactly from my meeting them and other relatives the intense emotional distress that the tragedy has caused them. I think that, in many ways, not knowing what happened is much more distressing than knowing the worst. I hope that now that some of the information about what happened is available to the relatives, it may in some way help them to come to terms with the appalling loss that they experienced.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Foreign Secretary mentioned the possibility of an appeal. I do not seek to trespass into that field, but can he tell me who will hear the appeal and where it will be heard, bearing in mind the fact that the trial was heard in the Netherlands? Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will take this brilliant example of Scottish justice operating abroad as a method of persuading his opposite number in the Bush Administration that the creation of an international criminal court is a necessity and that the American objections to such a court should now cease?

Mr. Cook: First, the appeal will be held in Camp Zeist and Mr. Al Megrahi will remain in detention there pending that appeal, which will be heard by judges of the Scottish Appeal Court. It will not be a formal sitting of the Scottish Appeal Court, which of course cannot sit outside Scotland, but it will be drawn from judges of that court.
Of course I anticipate that, when I see Mr. Colin Powell next week, we will discuss the international criminal court as part of our agenda. We are strongly committed to it and colleagues in the House have drawn attention to the importance of the proceedings for an international system of justice. In fairness, I should record that the statute of the international criminal court does not include acts of terrorism, on the grounds that there is already adequate international law on that point, and already adequate international remedy.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In recognition of the Foreign Secretary's already great involvement in securing a trial, which many people did not think possible, may I say that it brings tremendous relief to the families involved in the mass murder? I also met Dr. Jim Swire, when I was a junior Transport Minister. Will the Foreign Secretary think carefully about what the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said about re-alerting airports and ports to


their security role? One of the dangers is that we become complacent, and we should never become complacent about security.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can say, now that the trial is over, that there were moments when I wondered whether it would be possible to secure it; but, by perseverance, we got there, and today we can see why all the efforts of so many different people were worth while.
I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We have made improvements and changes but, unfortunately, those who seek to threaten the safety of passengers also look for ways in which they can change the threat and examine how they can harness evolving technology. For that reason, we can never afford to be complacent.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the steadfastness of Dr. Jim Swire and the victims' families. The fact that the trial, which took place in difficult circumstances, is seen to have been manifestly fair is a significant tribute to Scots law, to the authorities who investigated the case and to the lawyers and judges who took part in the case. I refer to the prosecuting team and, most important, to the defence team, who played their part in ensuring that the trial was seen to be fair and that the evidence was properly examined.
I remind my right hon. Friend that it was an expensive investigation and an expensive trial. The universal view is that it was worth every single penny. That has been demonstrated today. Will my right hon. Friend remember that point when this House debates the international criminal court, because those who argue that we should resist its establishment because the expense would be too great are marshalling their forces? Some of them are doing that in the other place at this very moment.

Mr. Cook: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments on the strength of Scots law, which were in no way undermined by the fact that he is a Scots lawyer. One of the exports that we identify for Scotland in the future is the Scots legal system and legal process.
I would share my hon. Friend's impatience if anybody were to criticise on the ground of cost what has been an historic legal innovation and a remarkable achievement 12 years after such a brutal mass murder. If anyone was now to say that we should not have done what we did because of the cost, the whole House would blow them out of the water. Nobody could possibly contemplate such criticism. Justice cannot necessarily be bought at a price that we can measure only in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
The same arguments could apply to the international criminal court, but I assure the House that the Government will take a very hard-headed approach to how the burden is shared. That is one reason why we will be anxious to ratify the treaty in the near future. If we are one of the first 60 countries to bring the court into being, we will have a very substantial say in its administration and the method of payment.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I invite the Foreign Secretary to join me in paying a particular tribute

to the men and women of the air accidents investigation branch of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is based in Farnborough in my constituency? They did a fantastic job in painstakingly reconstructing the remains of the Boeing 747, the nose cone of which rests in Farnborough and is a vivid testimony to the appalling act of terrorism that was perpetrated. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the extraordinary skill and professionalism of that group of men and women, whose reputation is revered not only in this country but worldwide?

Mr. Cook: I have no hesitation in endorsing the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The work of the investigation team from Farnborough played a vital role in the overall inquiry. Indeed, it included the construction of an entire life-sized mock-up of the Pan Am flight before it was destroyed. The team played an important part in taking forward our case.
As the hon. Gentleman has referred to the investigation and rescue teams, I pay particular tribute to all those who, on that awful night and the night after, sought to recover the bodies and to deal with the appalling tragedy. A number of police officers from my constituency attended on that night; they were drafted in to provide assistance. The circumstances in which the police, the Army and other rescue services operated were appalling and harrowing. We should remember with gratitude the enormous dedication that they showed.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Although the pursuit of justice in a matter such as this should never be compromised by cost, does my right hon. Friend have any idea of how much it will have cost to pursue the case and to hold a possible appeal? In particular, is there any possibility of recovering any of that cost from the United States, which I know is behind with its United Nations contributions? Perhaps it may want to contribute toward the costs, as this has been a joint enterprise in which it has been involved. Is this a matter that my right hon. Friend may wish to investigate?

Mr. Cook: I think that the frank answer to that is no. We had the legal jurisdiction for where the crime took place and we fully accepted our obligation to ensure that it was investigated and punished. We would not regard the legal costs of the judicial process as appropriate for international compensation. If we can share the burden or anybody else is willing to share it, we will pursue the matter. However, we should accept our obligation to ensure that justice is done, and take pride in the fact that we have now seen it done.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Foreign Secretary and other hon. Members have paid generous tribute to my constituent Dr. Jim Swire, whose unremitting efforts on behalf of his murdered daughter have led to today's successful conclusion of the trial. It is important at times such as these to remember the victims. Constituents who remember Flora describe her as a beautiful and talented young woman who was cut down in the prime of her life. Consequently, the Swire family must always live with a great sense of loss. Will the right hon. Gentleman continue not only to pay tribute to Dr. Swire, but to spell out his important role in efforts to bring the murderers to trial and to ensure that one of them


was found guilty? Will he also wish Dr. Swire peace of mind, now that after 12 years he finally has a result and has found somebody who is going to spend 20 years of his life in prison for the murder of his daughter and others?

Mr. Cook: I endorse absolutely the hon. Lady's remarks about her constituent. I have met Dr. Jim Swire many times during the past four years and I entirely respect the enormous vigour, but also patience and perseverance, with which he has pursued the matter.
Two years ago, I attended the service that was conducted in Westminster abbey on the 10th anniversary of the bombing, in which a candle was lit for every one of those who had perished and their names were read out one by one. It was a deeply moving occasion. We should never allow those who died to dwindle into mere statistics. We must remember that each of the victims was an individual and had relatives whose emotional grief during the past 12 years we can barely comprehend.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: As the Foreign Secretary knows, President Gaddafi was head of Government and head of state in Libya in December 1998 and remains in that position now. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that the restoration to normality of relations between the United Kingdom and Libya while President Gaddafi remains head of state could give all the wrong signals to other countries that promote and propagate international terrorism?

Mr. Cook: Diplomatic relations with Libya were suspended by the time of the Lockerbie bombing because of the murder of WPC Fletcher. In 1999, I reported to the House that we had achieved a satisfactory conclusion with the Libyan Government, in which they had agreed to take part in an investigation, to pay compensation and to accept responsibility. Their statement also renounced terrorism. On that basis, we resumed international relations. I point out that the statement was welcomed by the Opposition, who also welcomed the resumption of diplomatic relations.
I should like to clarify that diplomatic relations with a country are not a reward for good conduct, but a basis for communication. They enable us to speak frankly and fully. To be honest, I think that that channel for dialogue might have assisted us in achieving an agreement earlier on the surrender of the two Lockerbie suspects. We will certainly use it in the months ahead, in order to secure a response to the guilty verdict.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That—
(1) the matter of Building Safer Communities in Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
(2) the Committee shall meet on Tuesday 13th February at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of Building Safer Communities in Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales.))

The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 0.

Division No. 94]
[4.9 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cooper, Yvette


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cotter, Brian


Alexander, Douglas
Cousins, Jim


Allan, Richard
Crausby, David


Allen, Graham
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Austin, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bailey, Adrian
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ballard, Jackie
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Banks, Tony
(B'ham Hodge H)


Barnes, Harry
Dismore, Andrew


Barron, Kevin
Dobbin, Jim


Battle, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Beard, Nigel
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Doran, Frank


Begg, Miss Anne
Dowd, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Drew, David


Beith, RtHon A J
Drown, Ms Julia


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Edwards, Huw


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Efford, Clive


Bennett, Andrew F
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benton, Joe
Ennis, Jeff


Bermingham, Gerald
Feam, Ronnie


Best, Harold
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Betts, Clive
Fisher, Mark


Blackman, Liz
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Borrow, David
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brake, Tom
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brand, Dr Peter
Foulkes, George


Breed, Colin
Fyfe, Maria


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burnett, John
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cable, Dr Vincent
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hancock, Mike


Chidgey, David
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr Lynda
Healey, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hendrick, Mark


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hope, Phil






Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Martlew, Eric


Howells, Dr Kim
Meale, Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hutton, John
Miller, Andrew


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moffatt, Laura


lllsley, Eric
Moore, Michael


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jamieson, David
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
(B'ham Yardley)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Mountford, Kali


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Joyce, Eric
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Hara, Eddie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Olner, Bill


Keetch, Paul
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kemp, Fraser
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Perham, Ms Linda


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pound, Stephen


Kirkwood, Archy
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lammy, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prosser, Gwyn


Laxton, Bob
Purchase, Ken


Lepper, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Leslie, Christopher
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Livsey, Richard
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rendel, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, John


Love, Andrew
(Glasgow Anniesland)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rogers, Allan


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McDonnell, John
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Rowlands, Ted


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Roy, Frank


McIsaac, Shona
Ruane, Chris


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ruddock, Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McNulty, Tony
Salmond, Alex


MacShane, Denis
Salter, Martin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sanders, Adrian


McWalter, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)






Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Touhig, Don


Shipley, Ms Debra
Truswell, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Vaz, Keith


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Snape, Peter
Ward, Ms Claire


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Southworth, Ms Helen
Watts, David


Spellar, John
Webb, Steve


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
(Swansea W)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Willis, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winnick, David


Stringer, Graham
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woolas, Phil


Stunell, Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


(Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Mike Hall and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Eric Forth and



Miss Julie Kirkbride

Question accordingly agreed to.

Point of Order

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to read early-day motion 272 on today's Order Paper. It states that Adrian McMenamin, who is a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Wales, has been spending much time and, therefore, money from the public purse, downloading and inputting stupid and offensive remarks about Plaid Cymru-the Party of Wales. Is that good use of public funds? Has the Secretary of State for Wales or the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that they want to make a statement about that grossly offensive behaviour?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Speaker cannot be drawn into such an argument. However, now that the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on record, I am sure that it will be duly noted by the appropriate Minister.

Divorce (Religious Marriages)

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision enabling a court to require the dissolution of a religious marriage before granting a civil divorce.
The idea is not new. Indeed, Lord Lester introduced a similar Bill in the previous Session. It completed all its stages in another place, only to be blocked in the House. The essential provisions of the Bill were previously enacted in part II of the Family Law Act 1996. However, they have not been effected and are to be repealed for reasons that are wholly unconnected with the Bill, which the Government support.
The purpose of the Bill is to remedy a disadvantage suffered by Jewish men and women who are prevented from remarrying because of the refusal of their partner to grant or accept a religious divorce. The basic Jewish laws relating to marriage and divorce are biblical and, therefore, cannot be changed. In Jewish law, marriage and divorce are consensual processes: an individual cannot be married or divorced against his or her will. This creates a problem in cases in which one party seeks to end the marriage and the other refuses to grant or receive a divorce. Such a divorce is called a get in Hebrew.
For a civil divorce to be effective in Jewish law, a get must be obtained. This is a consensual divorce in which mutual co-operation between the parties is required. The husband has to go before a Beth Din Jewish court for a get and deliver it to his wife, and she is required to accept it. If he does not do so, the wife cannot re-marry in Jewish law, although he may be able to do so. Jewish authorities have long been sensitive to the problem, especially when it is the wife who is trapped in a marriage that she seeks to end. In Hebrew, she is called an agunah, meaning one who is chained to a spouse against her will.
In recent years, the Jewish community in Britain has done all that it can internally to alleviate the problem through its rabbinical courts. A pre-nuptial agreement has been instituted, and it is currently signed by the majority of couples, binding them, should their marriage fail, to attend a Jewish court to resolve outstanding differences.
Synagogue bodies have agreed to institute communal sanctions against recalcitrant spouses. However, the first is a voluntary undertaking, and the second may simply be ignored by a determined spouse, driven by the that often accompanies divorce. A well publicised example of that was a case at the end of last year in which a rabbi took an advertisement in the Jewish Chronicle to name and shame a recalcitrant husband, albeit to no avail.
Jewish women who wish to conduct their family relationships within the framework of their religious beliefs have virtually no power to compel a reluctant husband to grant them a get. Without a get, a divorcee who has a child by her subsequent partner is defined as an adulteress under Jewish law. Her child becomes a mamzer, an illegitimate outcast, which is a stigma that carries on into future generations. If a wife refuses to accept her husband's get, he is known as an agun. However, he does not suffer from those same disadvantages. As a result, a husband can effectively hold his wife to ransom, and can demand money, property, or other rights concerning custody or child maintenance in return for a get.
There are no reliable statistics of the total number of women affected, but seven cases in the Hendon area have been referred to me. No doubt there are many more in my own constituency of which I am unaware, and if they are multiplied throughout the Jewish community nationwide, the House can make its own assessment of the scale of the problem.
The cases of which I have heard reveal devastating personal tragedies. For example, there was a case in which a woman left an unhappy marriage. Her husband tried to get their child put into an orphanage. There have been long legal wranglings, and she still does not have her get. Another case involved a husband who left a 26-year marriage soon after the death of one of the children. He subsequently tried to blackmail the father of his wife for large sums of money.
A further case involved a woman who, at a young age, married a man who became aggressive. For example, he brought the garage door down on her head. He would not give her a get. His attitude was that if he could not have her, no one else could. There was also the case of a very young woman with young children who moved from Stamford Hill to Hendon to escape the violent husband who had abused her and the children. After six years of difficult and protracted negotiations, she succeeded in obtaining her get last year. Another case involved a woman whose husband deserted her when she was eight and a half months pregnant. She had to sell her flat and move, with the baby, into a rented room to pay him off in return for the get.
The Bill will provide a real remedy for real women such as these, because it will rectify the serious anomaly in English law that creates that extremely undesirable state of affairs. Under English law, a
marriage between two persons professing the Jewish religion according to the usage of the Jews
that has been solemnised on the authority of a superintendent registrar's certificate is recognised as a civil marriage, but a civil divorce may take place without a Jewish divorce having been given. That results in a so-called limping marriage, in which the parties are free to remarry under civil law, but not under religious law.
That is why the Jewish community has now sought the assistance of civil law, in the form of a provision that a judge should have the discretionary power to withhold the grant of a civil divorce until a Jewish divorce has been given.
The Bill would enable the court to require the dissolution of a religious marriage before granting a civil divorce. That would provide a lever with which pressure could be brought to bear on the husband to agree to a get. In cases in which it would be unjust for him not to do so, he would not be granted a civil divorce—which would normally be sufficient for his purposes—without agreeing to the religious divorce that his wife needed to avoid the stigma that I have described.
Such provisions have been enacted in our own law, although they have not been brought into force for the reasons to which I referred, and similar ones are already part of Canadian, South African and New York state law and are under consideration in Scotland. They would not


resolve all cases, but would resolve many—namely, those in which the husband wishes to remarry and thus needs a civil divorce.
It is important to understand that the Jewish community is seeking the assistance of civil law not to solve a religious problem, but, first, to end the anomaly whereby a Jewish marriage is also a civil marriage, although a civil divorce may be unaccompanied by a Jewish divorce; and, secondly, to seek the assistance of the civil courts to bring a couple to a Jewish court, which itself would undertake to resolve the dispute, allowing both parties to remarry according to their religious convictions. The Bill would also empower the Lord Chancellor to extend its provisions by order to other faiths, so it could also provide relief in similar cases within, for example, the Islamic community.
My Bill has the support of all synagogue bodies in Anglo-Jewry, orthodox and progressive, as well as the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies and the agunot campaign. I hope that it also has the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Mike Gapes, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Ivan Lewis, Ms Linda Perham, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. Stephen Twigg and Mr. James Clappison.

DIVORCE (RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES)

Mr. Andrew Dismore accordingly presented a Bill to make provision enabling a court to require the dissolution of a religious marriage before granting a civil divorce: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 37].

Police

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2001–02 (HC 156), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I am pleased to take part in the annual debate with colleagues on the police grant settlement. This is an important moment. Perhaps I might begin with a small point of procedure and process. I very much regret that the debate will last only an hour and a half. As the House will know, Standing Orders require us to have 90-minute debates on the police grant and each of the two local government grant settlements. In accordance with our practice over previous years, the Government tabled a motion that would have enabled us to have a three-hour debate on the police and to take the two local government motions together. That motion was objected to not by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)— I pay tribute to him and his Front-Bench colleagues who want fully to debate these matters, despite the weakness of their case—but by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and one or two others. I can say only that the parliamentary games that Conservative Back Benchers have played have reduced the House's chance to discuss this important question and most Members regret that.
On the procedural point, hon. Members have the right to a vote at the end of the debate, as is convention. However, having just witnessed an absurd vote of 334 to zero, which took up time to no avail, I remind the House—I am sure that the official Opposition will respect this—that a vote against the police grant report is effectively a vote to deny police forces the money that they need to carry out their police work. I would have no hesitation in making that political point were such a vote to take place.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister is of course right that a three-hour debate on such an important subject would have been better than one of 90 minutes. However, as the names of those who object do not appear in Hansard and, in particular, as Ministers have recently curtailed debate day after day after day, is not it a bit rich for him to make that point?

Mr. Clarke: I work on a basis that I can assure the hon. Gentleman is not police practice in this country—usual suspects. The usual suspects for such disruption of the business of the House include those I mentioned.

Mr. David Wilshire: I understand the point the Minister makes about the numbers voting in Divisions, but is he not being slightly disingenuous in suggesting that anyone who votes against his proposals is opposed to money for the police? As he knows only too well, I shall probably have to vote against them unless he can reassure me later that the grant will be varied so that Surrey gets a decent share. Does he accept that, if I do so, I shall not be voting against all money for the police, but voting against the unfair treatment of my county?

Mr. Clarke: Actually, I cannot accept that. Yesterday a delegation came to discuss the matter with me, and with

the hon. Gentleman and his Surrey colleagues. I hope he would acknowledge that it was a friendly debate, in which I sought to deal with some of the points that were made. I shall endeavors to do the same if the hon. Gentleman is called to speak—and, judging by the relatively small number of Opposition Back Benchers present, I should have thought that he had a good chance. He is wrong, however: a decision to vote against this grant is a decision to ensure that Surrey, along with all other forces, gets no money.
The police funding settlement for 2001–02 has enabled us to give a strong boost to policing. Overall, the centrally supported provision for policing will increase by 10.1 per cent. next year to £8.495 billion, with further increases of 6.1 per cent. in 2002–03 and 3.1 per cent. in 2003–04. That is a real-terms increase of 7.4 per cent. on the provision for 2000–01, and we are confident that it is a real incentive to improvement in policing on the ground.
As part of the consultation exercise on the settlement, I have received letters from a number of chief constables and police authorities, as well as from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. I have also had meetings with Members from a number of areas—I mentioned Surrey a moment ago—and have responded to letters from Members representing many forces. In each case, Members were supportive of their local forces, but raised various concerns about the distribution of funding, overall funding levels for their forces, and pressures on forces to go on delivering service at the same level. I shall deal with those issues later.
The Government's overall spending plans for the police over the next three years were announced on 19 July by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary following the 2000 spending review. By 2003–04, police funding will have risen by nearly £1.6 billion from this year's provision—£9.3 billion as against £7.7 billion. That is a rise of more than 20 per cent. Most will be paid to police authorities as grant, either for general purposes or to support targeted initiatives.
For 2001–02, the total amount of police authority general expenditure to which the Government are prepared to contribute their share of funds will be £7.732 billion. That is an increase of £377 million—5.1 per cent.—on 2000–01. The amount is known as total standard spending. Grant on TSS is paid directly to police authorities, and it is for them and for chief officers to determine how best to allocate their resources, taking into account local operational needs and priorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether the money that he proposes to allocate does any of the following? First, does it guarantee that by the end of the coming financial year there will be more police officers than there were when the Government came to office? Secondly, does it guarantee that all police forces in England and Wales will be able to increase their numbers next year? A couple of months ago, the Home Secretary wrote to me saying that he expected at least four forces to experience another fall next year. Will that still be the case? Lastly, if the settlement is so generous, why was the Home Office allocation for the coming year over 6 per cent., while the allocation for the police budget was only 3.8 per cent.?

Mr. Clarke: I will respond to those points, but I shall do so at the appropriate point in my speech. I have a lot


to get through, but I shall try to deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points. The only one that I did not intend to cover is his final point, but I can say that the allocation of Home Office central funding includes money to finance a number of significant things we are doing to support the police generally. There is actually a reduction in the amount to be spent by the Home Office on "bureaucrats". We have made efficiency savings in the Home Office as elsewhere, but there have been significant increases in allocations to, for instance, the forensic science service, to enable it to deal with DNA matters.
I shall come to the question of police numbers in a moment.
Additional police funding on targeted initiatives mostly goes to police authorities. The four main schemes are to increase police officer numbers—that is the crime fighting fund; to tackle the problems of policing sparsely populated areas; to pay for new technology in the form of Airwave, the modern police radio system; and to expand the DNA programme to cover the whole of the known active criminal population by 2004.
In July, the Home Secretary announced the expansion of the crime fighting fund, funding an extra 4,000 officers and taking the total to an additional 9,000 recruits over and above those already planned for the three years from April 2000. A total of £151 million will be available in 2001–02 for recruitment and training, of which £129 million will be allocated to police authorities for local recruitment and pay of officers recruited under the scheme.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: May I finish what I am going to say on that point and deal with the police numbers point? Before I leave it, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The crime fighting fund is ring-fenced funding for front-line policing to help drive forward the Government's campaign to prevent crime and to reduce the fear of crime. The fund was established in response to concerns about falling police numbers. Those concerns are shared by the police, the public and many hon. Members. By operating a ring-fenced fund, we are doing as much as we can to ensure that resources are directed precisely at increasing officer numbers. We are already seeing the turn of the tide after a prolonged period in which numbers have fallen without check. I want the change to be decisive.
I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I can offer no guarantees on those matters because, as I indicated earlier, how police authorities, in consultation with chief officers, decide to spend their resources is, rightly, a matter for them. Ultimately, they will decide what they do.
The only guarantees that I can give are on the crime fighting fund allocation, which can be spent only on police numbers. We will definitely allocate the money to the forces to spend if they wish to do so, but, to be helpful, I can say that 13 forces already have a higher strength of police officers than in March 1997, the last figures before the Government came to office. Those are Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Durham, Dyfed-Powys,

Gloucestershire, Gwent, Leicestershire, Northumbria, North Wales, South Wales, South Yorkshire, Thames Valley and West Midlands. All today have more officers in place than when the Government came to power. That is about a third of all police authorities.
I expect that, by the time we get to March this year, about a half of all police authorities will have the number of police officers that there were in March 1997. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey what the position will be in March 2002, at the end of the five-year term of the Parliament, because the uncertainties are too far ahead, but the Government's intention is that, by March 2002, there will be more officers, taking the country as a whole, than there were in March 1997. I believe that that will be the case.
That is the best that I can do to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sorry that it does not give him the guarantee that he seeks, but it is a categoric statement both of what we have achieved and what we intend to achieve. In a debate this morning on police resourcing in south Buckinghamshire, I was able to point out that the Thames Valley force already had 53 more officers than when the Government came to power. That extends in different degrees to every force.

Dr. Cable: Can the Minister explain the disparity between the amounts that he has estimated will be available to London under the crime fighting fund and the much lower figures that are being used by the Metropolitan police, which have led the Mayor and the Greater London Authority to make what in many people's eyes are extravagant demands for precepting on local authorities, but are based on different assumptions about the amount of money that is available under the crime fighting fund?

Mr. Clarke: I do not like to be an anorak, but I am becoming almost a world expert on the different methods of counting police numbers in the Metropolitan police authority area, in Government statistics and a in range of other statistical areas, so I will not venture into the territory that the hon. Gentleman invites me into, but there is a central issue for the Metropolitan area, which he is well aware of, representing it as he does: the distinction between the amount of money allocated to the Met that would enable it recruit officers and its actual ability to recruit officers at this time. That has been a dominant theme of the discussions both in the House and with the Metropolitan police.
I hope, however, that the pay settlement that we have indicated and the recent announcement on rail travel for police officers is making a difference. Anecdotally, I can certainly say—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can confirm it—that our recent announcement on travel on public transport in the metropolitan area has been very positively received by police in the metropolis.

Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that there is cause for huge concern in London? Just within the past year, the Metropolitan police have had to revise upwards by 25 per cent. their wastage figures on the number of officers who are likely to leave over the period covered by the crime fighting fund. As for the fighting fund, is it not true that the Metropolitan police have not been able to recruit and


are asking to carry forward to next year about 115 placements that they have not been able to make? Is it not wrong to be complacent about that?

Mr. Clarke: The idea that I was complacent about it is absurd. In fact, in my reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I indicated precisely the opposite.
We have been able to be flexible in relation not only to the metropolis, but to other forces such as Thames Valley police in rejigging the crime fighting fund initial allocations, to meet the particular circumstances of different forces. Therefore, some forces have accelerated and some have delayed their allocations, in a manner that I think is beneficial to those forces.
As we are discussing the metropolis, I also want to express my very strong support for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens, and for his deputy Ian Blair for the work that they are doing to try to revitalise the Met's approach on those key issues.
I agree, however, with the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. There is a very serious issue, and I have discussed it very openly in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we believe that we are taking action to address it. Nevertheless, he is quite right. If he wants to make political capital out of it, he certainly should do so. There are issues that have to be addressed. I say that we are addressing them, although there is a great deal to do. He may try to claim that we are not doing that, but I do not think that it would be substantiated.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and the flexibility that he has shown on the issue. However, is there not a particular problem in constituencies such as mine that do not have the special measures provided to the Metropolitan police but are only five miles outside the Met area? He says that Thames Valley has had 53 additional officers, but the fact is that they have not been sent to Slough. What can he do to ensure that Slough gets the officers it needs to police our community properly?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes her point, as always, very articulately. We discussed the matter in her constituency with her police in Slough, because I acknowledge her point. She is right to say that in the socio-economic categories, for example, Slough is more similar to some of the London boroughs than it is to many of the other areas of the Thames Valley force. I can say, first, that we are allocating more resources to Thames Valley.
Secondly, the police negotiating board is currently considering the matter of pay for forces in the ring outside London. I hope that it will come to a decision soon. If it comes to the type of decision that I know that my hon. Friend is pressing, I think that it will make a little bit of a difference.
Thirdly, a process has been taking place in the Thames Valley authority, which has been explained to me, on the allocation of resources within the Thames Valley area.
Today at Prime Minister's questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made some points on the issue of police housing. I tell the Thames Valley police authority that it should take very seriously

precisely the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is making. For our part, we could not and will not overthrow the authority of the chief constable and the police authority. However, we shall try to do what we can to encourage the type of serious attention to the problems in Slough to which she referred. I pay tribute to her assiduous campaigning on the matter.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister will be aware that the people of Kingston still do not believe that the money that the Government gave to the Greater London Authority was sufficient to increase police numbers to the level that we need. However, he may also be aware that the GLA had a debate on the Metropolitan police authority budget, following which Sir John Stevens sent a letter to Lord Harris in which he said:
you will appreciate my concern at how difficult any further reductions beyond the full I per cent. efficiency savings now required by the GLA would be.
Is the Minister aware that Conservative GLA members have tabled an alternative budget requiring £47 million of extra efficiency savings—over and above the 1 per cent. GLA-required efficiency savings—which would require a cut in police numbers and police resources in London?

Mr. Clarke: I was not aware of that, but I never cease to be shocked by the activities of Conservatives, who try and score short-sighted political points at the expense of long-term investment. That was the story when they were in government, and it is the story now that they are in opposition. I am not surprised, therefore, by what the hon. Gentleman says. I am glad to confirm the entente cordiale—a suitable term between pro-Europeans—that exists between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on these questions.
I shall turn now to the other matters regarding the Metropolitan police that I want to deal with, so that they can all be considered in the round.
On 1 April 2000, the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district were brought into line with those of the 32 London boroughs. That important development has enhanced policing in a variety of ways. It meant that Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey took over responsibility for policing areas that were previously within the Metropolitan police district.
General adjustments to the grant distribution were made from this year, and we have taken account of transitional costs incurred last year and in 2000–01. I recognise that the three county police authorities will continue to incur transitional costs next year.
We will therefore be making special payments of grant in 2001–02, totalling £2.25 million, in recognition of the additional costs resulting from the boundary changes. Accordingly, Essex will get £14,000, Hertfordshire £627,000, and Surrey £1.609 million.
When I met the delegation of Surrey Members of Parliament earlier this week, I said that I would look at detailed submissions and representations from the Surrey police authority and the chief constable of Surrey if it was felt that the transitional costs were greater than had been allowed for in the grant.
The Government accept that the police funding formula is not sufficiently sophisticated or flexible to respond to the distinct characteristics and responsibilities of the


Metropolitan police. It is for that reason that the Greater London Authority receives, each year, a special payment of grant on behalf of the Metropolitan police authority in addition to that provided through the funding formula.
In recognition of the Metropolitan police authority's specific needs, the Metropolitan police special grant for 2001–02 will be increased, in line with the increase in total standard spending, from £182 million this year to £191 million. That is paid as 100 per cent. Home Office grant, and is not charged to London council tax payers.
With the establishment of the MPA in July 2000, arrangements for the policing of London have been brought more closely into line with arrangements elsewhere in England and Wales. The Metropolitan police precept is now set by the Mayor as part of the Greater London Authority budget, and is subject to the approval of the GLA.
With that, I conclude my remarks about the Metropolitan police. I shall therefore give way to any hon. Member who has a question about that.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for his courteous reception of the delegation from Surrey on Monday. I am pleased that he has put on record the Government's approach to transitional funding, and hope that he will look at extra transitional funding for the coming financial year.
Will the Minister confirm that he will also consider bids for subsequent financial years, especially for Surrey, which is assuming the lion's share of the burden relinquished by the Metropolitan police? That is especially important, given that the wider formula means that, compared to other police forces, Surrey is in a dire position.

Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that, but I reinforce the point that I made to the delegation that I met on Monday, which was led by the hon. Gentleman. The only basis for adjustment will be a clear demonstration that the transitional costs incurred by the Surrey police authority are greater than the sums allocated to meet them. The Government are not offering a type of slush-fund payment: allocations are made in relation to specific and demonstrable additional transitional costs.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I echo the thanks to the Minister expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for his courteous reception of the Surrey delegation yesterday. I was in that delegation, as was my hon. Friend and other Surrey Members of Parliament, the chief constable of Surrey and the chairman of the Surrey police authority.
However, will the Minister repeat for the record another thing that he was helpful enough to tell the delegation on Monday—that he is prepared to look at the specific issue of the additional costs falling on Surrey police as a result of the house arrest of Senator Pinochet? As he knows, the chief constable has estimated those additional costs at £1.2 million, of which the Government have repaid only £200,000. The Minister will recall that in a written answer he estimated those costs to be £750,000 in total. Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at those figures since Monday? Can he now confirm the chief constable's estimate?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that he will look again at the fact that Surrey will get only £11,000 for rural crime fighting? As he said, that is far too little.

Mr. Clarke: I will deal with rural issues in a moment. I confirm that I said that I would look at the additional costs that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to do so since the delegation, as I have been detained on business in the House. I will look at the issue, but I say to the House what I said to the delegation—the fact that I am saying that I will look at something is not a guarantee that I will agree it.
I announced on 15 June 2000 that the Home Secretary was to make available £15 million from the budget for the remainder of 2000–01 to enhance the policing service in rural areas. Financial provision for future years is now included in the spending review 2000 settlement. Forces policing sparsely populated areas will receive a further £30 million in 2001–02 and in the following two years. The money has been directed towards areas of greater sparsity—31 forces gain from the rural policing fund.
I have listened to widespread expressions of concern about the problems of rural policing, and I want to see concrete benefits from the allocation. The police authorities that receive funding under this scheme will need to show, in their best value performance plans, how they will use this money to improve policing in rural areas. I look forward to police forces using these funds imaginatively.
Two forces have made representations to me about being harshly treated in the allocation. The Northumbria police authority is in the unusual position of having a very sparsely populated part of its area—one of the sparsest in the country—side by side with a very densely populated area. The way the statistics worked out, the Northumbria force did not gain, as it might have hoped, from the allocation. I have said to the chief constable and the chair of the police authority that I am prepared to look at specific bids they might wish to make under targeted policing to deal with some of those aspects in the rural areas. I said exactly the same to the delegation from Surrey, which received £11,000 from the system—not an immense amount of money. It has a case for some of the areas.

Mr. Steve Webb: The Avon and Somerset force polices some sparsely populated areas. It was not among the forces the Minister listed earlier whose numbers had gone up. However, violent crime has risen remorselessly in Avon and Somerset, not just in the past three years but in the past 20. Does the hon. Gentleman realistically expect that anything in this document is enough to result in the figures for violent crime going down in the next 12 months, as we all want?

Mr. Clarke: I believe that the allocations will make a difference on violent crime. I hope that the Avon and Somerset force will, over the next 12 months, have more officers than there were in March 1997.
The issues of violent crime are much more substantial than simply police numbers. Violent crime—a term that covers a wide variety of types of crime from the exceptionally serious to the not so serious—is the single biggest problem that we have in the areas of policing and crime reduction for which I am responsible. That is why


the Government have published an action plan and why the police forces are giving great attention to it. It covers a wide range of issues, including dealing with alcohol, the relationship between the police and schools and how we use DNA technology as a deterrent and as a way of giving people greater confidence in the detection of violent crime. Police presence has something to do with it, as implied by the hon. Member for Northavon, but by no means everything. There needs to be an overall approach.

Mr. David Heath: On the Avon and Somerset force, is there not a specific problem when a force covers a large area that is mixed in character, including the inner-city areas of Bristol and rural parts of Somerset? Is not the formula disadvantageous to a non-homogenous police force area which tends to lose out according to almost every criterion?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will be shocked to hear that I have received representations from just about every police authority in the country. They all argue that they lose out because they are homogenous-urban, homogenous-rural or not homogenous. They all say that they are the losers, come what may. To be fair, all that I can say is that there is weight in the hon. Gentleman's argument, as there is in those put to me by many other hon. Members.

Mr. David Kidney: May I say how pleased I was when the Staffordshire police qualified for some of the funding for policing rural areas? They have already announced that they will restore beats in rural areas. They have even announced the completion of a mobile police station, which can be taken to rural locations, which is an innovative development. I heard my hon. Friend say that he would monitor the use of the money in future. Does that mean that those forces that use it well will receive more, and those that use it badly, less?

Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that we are monitoring the use of the money and we expect it to be well used. As yet, we have not established a system whereby performance drives the allocation of money as my hon. Friend implies. Through the targeted crime initiatives, we hope to establish what works. When people ask for funding for something that has been demonstrated to work, they will have a stronger case. There may come a time when we achieve the world that my hon. Friend, as a member of the Treasury Committee, seeks to achieve in everything that he does, but we are not there yet.
I was glad that in Avon and Somerset, to which hon. Members referred, there was a reduction in crime in the year to September 2000 of 2.5 per cent., which is far better that the national average of 0.2 per cent. Violent crime increased, but crime as a whole decreased.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As the Minister said, an announcement was made about the sparsity element, which was most welcome. There is a crisis in policing in Wales. For the third year running, expenditure on the police forces in Wales has been cut. It was 4.93 per cent. of the budget in 1997–98, 4.92 per cent. in the following year and 4.89 per cent. last year. The North Wales police say that they are not hard done by, as they are getting the average increase, but even taking that into account, given their pension and pay

commitments, funding is at a standstill. Therefore, the settlement is not good for Welsh police forces. As no other Member of Parliament for Wales is present in the Chamber I thought I had better raise that matter.

Mr. Clarke: The Welsh police forces have a unique record, I think. I have here the statistics for each region and I see that in the period between March 1997 and 1 September 2000—since the beginning of this Parliament—the number of police officers in Dyfed-Powys increased by 40, in Gwent it increased by 28, in north Wales, which is the hon. Gentleman's area, by 24 and in south Wales by 53. That is an increase in every force area. That does not solve the problem—as I am always pointing out, police numbers are not the only issue.
However, good progress has been made and that is no doubt one reason why crime in Wales reduced by 10.3 per cent. in the last year for which figures were recorded. That is a good performance and I pay tribute to the forces in Wales for what they are doing. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's argument that more needs to be done. The North Wales force has been particularly creative in its approach to tackling rural policing positively.
We have made available an extra £500 million, including capital provision, over three years to meet the costs of Airwave—the modern radio communication system for the police. It will provide the police with more reliable, better quality radio and data communications. Airwave will give officers fast, secure, digital communications and access to local and national databases.
Payments in each of the three years will be concentrated on police authorities as they take up the system. The alternative would have been to spread the support more thinly across all forces every year. After consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, I decided that a focused funding arrangement would be more helpful to forces meeting the initial costs of Airwave roll-out. The core service charges for Airwave will be met centrally.
The DNA expansion programme has important implications for violent crime. We are committing £143 million in new money over the spending review years to the DNA project. That is in addition to up to £17 million a year in 2000–01 and 2001–02 in grants to police authorities. It will enable us to expand the national DNA database to hold the DNA profiles of the whole of the active criminal population by 2004. It will also provide support to enable forces to visit more scenes of crime, and to collect and process evidence from the increasing number of DNA matches of crimes to offenders. I hope shortly to announce details of the initial funding allocation to police authorities.
I emphasise that I can think of no more effective way of deterring crime than guaranteeing to potential criminals that if they commit their crime they will be caught by the use of DNA technology. During my time as a Minister, one of the more exciting developments that I see when I visit different forces is their ability to solve vicious, bad crimes—murders and rapes—dating from as long as 10 years before, through the availability of that technology. The more it is clear to criminals that their


crime will be solved and that they will be punished, the better our chances will be. I attach great importance to that particular investment.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: When I talk to my constituents, the majority of them are delighted that the Government are taking that course. They think that it is common sense to use such information to solve crime. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, whatever happens, he will press on with the programme, despite some of the opposition that we have heard?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He is absolutely right. The concrete results achieved produce a much more unfriendly environment for the potential criminal. That is why the Government are giving that investment such a high priority.
For all those projects, specific payments will continue to be made for all three years of the spending review period. They are key programmes.
In November, when we announced the provisional funding settlement, details of the specific payments were given at the same time. It is the Government's intention to continue that arrangement next year and also to include details of capital and the National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service levies. Instead of announcements dribbling out over time, everyone will know exactly where they stand.

Mr. David Heath: Although the capital spends this year are extremely welcome, there is still the problem that national programmes are displacing much-needed essential maintenance and work on the backlog of repairs in forces. Can the Minister persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends of the crying need to release the accumulated capital receipts and to allow them to be used for the purposes for which they were raised from local taxpayers and ratepayers—to fight crime effectively?

Mr. Clarke: That is a fair point and I shall consider it. Although capital expenditure is not part of the grant report, for this year we have been able to raise the sum for capital grant and supplementary credit approvals from £144.3 million to £157.3 million, after several years during which the total remained unchanged. In addition, £75 million will be allocated to those forces taking Airwave; and all police authorities and forces are being encouraged to explore the scope for private finance initiative projects. However, I shall look into the point about capital receipts made by the hon. Gentleman. It would be helpful if he could write to me about the ways in which his force might use such resources; I should be happy to consider that.
We are introducing other funding initiatives. We are providing for a basic command unit fund to support and encourage programmes to prevent crime and fear of crime at the level closest to the general public. An important part of our policy is to strengthen the basic command unit aspect. Details of the scheme will be developed and will be published later this year. Provision has also been made for assistance to police authorities in London and the south-east towards the cost of the pay lead necessary to recruit and retain officers. That point relates to our earlier discussions.
The settlement takes into account the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to improve efficiency for which we set a year-on-year target of 2 per cent. for each year between 1999 and 2002. The inspectorate assessed all 43 police authorities and forces as having delivered the 2 per cent. efficiency gains; they are on line to deliver further efficiency gains of 2 per cent. The total value was more than £183 million—a serious amount. We believe that efficiency gains will total at least £440 million over the three-year period. I congratulate all the forces on the commitment that they made to achieve those improvements in sometimes difficult circumstances.
On next year's funding settlement, we continue to set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help planning, so we have proposed no changes to the method of police grant distribution. There will thus be no substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year. Data have been updated as usual. That has had an effect on grant distribution between police authority areas.

Mr. Blunt: When will the results of the 2001 census come into the formula?

Mr. Clarke: The short answer to that question, which I put articulately and effectively, is that I do not know. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not for the police. We are merely subjects of DETR in our police operations at the Home Office.
The main issues that emerged from the consultation and the representations that were received were the implications of ring-fenced funding, the proposed levies for the NCS and the NCIS, the problems of rural policing, the continuation of the old force establishment component in the formula, the costs of Airwave and the costs of police pensions.
I have addressed the issues of ring-fenced funding. We believe that it is important that these funds are targeted more specifically to achieve results—to recruit more police officers, establish the DNA database and so on. I shall not devote more time to that point.
I hope that it will be possible to build on the successes that we have taken forward. The whole settlement is concentrated on improving the policing service on the ground; most of the funds will, as in the past, reach police authorities.
Throughout the country there was a great deal of what I can only describe as scaremongering about the NCS and NCIS levies. I attach great importance to funding the NCS and the NCIS at the proper levels. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took careful account of the comments made, and the increases in the NCS and NCIS levies, which when added together amount to 10 per cent. of the 2000/01 levy in cash terms, achieve a balance. The increase for the NCS was broadly in line with the average spending increases across the country. The increase for the NCIS was significantly greater, because we need to commit to intelligence-led policing in a variety of ways. The system of funding the NCS and the NCIS is under review and there is legislation before the House on the matter at the moment; we debated its Second Reading yesterday.
I have discussed rural policing.
I have been asked to complete the removal of the police establishments element from the formula. Police establishment levels were originally included to provide stability and continuity. The Government have always intended that those historic manpower levels should be part of the formula on a temporary basis, and should be removed at whatever rate proves compatible with the need for stability. It remains our intention in due course to wind up that part of the formula, which has been progressively reduced from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent. of overall funding, but in the interests of stability we are making no formula changes for next year.
Pensions are a real cause of grievance in many parts of the country. The arrangements whereby pension costs form part of each police authority's budget are long-standing. There are some advantages, but overall there is no doubt that rising costs are a matter of concern to the police service. We are still working on proposals for a new pension scheme for new entrants that will be less expensive for officers and police authorities alike. There will need to be further consultation on that in due course, as part of our long-term strategy.
I take a particular interest in these issues and have discovered for myself how difficult they are. I have joined colleagues in the Treasury in asking officials to provide an assessment of the various alternative ways of providing the finance for police and fire pensions. The options considered will range from establishing fully funded schemes to changing the way in which expenditure on police and fire pensions is presented in the accounts. My officials have been asked to take account of the views of police and fire authorities and other key stakeholders. I expect a report on the alternatives to be ready by the spring.
In conclusion, the Government are determined to reduce crime, to lessen fear of crime and to see more police officers back on the beat. The signs are that that is starting to happen. I will not join in the party political arguments that we sometimes have on these matters, but I believe that the record of this year and of the settlement is one of which the Government can be proud, and which the police service as whole has the basis to develop into the future.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I start, as the Minister did, by paying a tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our police force.
When I spoke in last year's counterpart of this debate, I had been shadowing the Minister for three or four hours and was just starting in my present role as Opposition spokesman. After a year, I have had an opportunity to see at first hand the work that the police are doing in their fight against crime. I have spoken to officers of all ranks, and I am more conscious of the value of that work than I was previously, although I have always been a strong supporter of the work that the police do.
Last year, I said that morale was a problem in the police service. There is no doubt that the position has worsened in the intervening 12 months. The chairman of the Police Federation, whom the Home Secretary often criticises on the subject, has said that police morale is the worst that he has ever seen. The Minister said in a parliamentary answer that a good way to judge morale was to look at

how many officers were leaving: resignations from the police service have increased by 60 per cent. under this Government.
I shall give a typical example of the comments that I have received. An officer recently e-mailed my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), saying:
We used to love the job and always did everything we could to keep the wheel on the cart. Now we are taken for granted…
Morale countrywide is at all-time low not just from the remuneration situation but the constant abuse…and the sheer lack of the Home Secretary coming up with anything useful, just trite schemes that sound good if you know nothing of Policing or Criminal law.
I thank God that neither of my children have expressed any desire to join the police, and were they to do so, I would do all in my power to dissuade them.
That comment is not unique. We often hear very critical comments about what officers regard as Government complacency. They know that 200 offenders, who have been convicted of assaulting police officers, have been let out of jail on the special early release scheme. Those criminals were not fined, but sentenced to prison. On average, they have served about 30 per cent. of the sentences imposed by the courts. Such measures are devastating to police morale.
It is rather rich for the Home Secretary to say today that there is a hard core of about 100,000 criminals in the country and that the courts are at fault for not imposing heavier sentences, given that, whatever the sentence, under the early release scheme offenders are let out after serving less than half their sentence. There is a certain dishonesty about that, and if we are to address the problems of crime, we need to adopt a straightforward approach that can be understood by those who might be tempted into crime.
The police have 2,500 fewer officers and the Minister suggests that the recent one-off boost in recruitment lays a basis for the future, but all the signs show that police officers are leaving in greater numbers and that the crisis will get worse, not better. Targeting some offences, such as car crime and burglary, is a good idea, but too few officers are dealing with those manpower-intensive duties, with the effect that insufficient officers are available in our town centres to deal with violent crime and to prevent it from happening simply by their presence. There is no better way to stop trouble in a town centre than to have a strong, visible police presence.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Heald: I want to finish the point, and then the Minister can answer all my questions at the same time.
During Jonathan Dimbleby's programme on ITV on Sunday, the Home Secretary kept saying that the Government
made no promises about the total number of police officers.
He said that they had
said nothing at all about increasing the total number of police officers".
When the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), used to do the Minister's job, he used to say that talking about police numbers was "sterile and simplistic" and that that was not


the issue. Will the Minister tell us how committed the Government are to the question of the total number of police officers?

Mr. Clarke: I am very committed to it, which is why I said in response to an earlier intervention that I was confident that, five years after the Government were elected, we would have more police officers across the country than we inherited. A third of police authorities in Britain already have more of them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about violent crime and wonder whether he will join me in congratulating, for example, the Merseyside police. They have used the extra money that we have given them to deal with robbery and to raise their profile in the city centre—for example, with mounted police—precisely to inhibit the alcohol-related violent crime to which he refers.

Mr. Heald: Nobody is more prepared than I am to pay tribute to the work of officers who tackle crimes such as robbery. It is difficult to deal with such crimes effectively, and it is right that we should pay such a tribute. Anti-robbery initiatives and high-visibility policing in places such as Hillingdon have had a good effect. However, the Minister should consider whether it is good enough to have the high-visibility policing that we need only in certain areas. Should not such policing take place everywhere when it is needed? The problem is that there are just not the officers to do the job.
The Labour party pledged in its manifesto that it would
get more officers back on the beat.
The Home Secretary now seems to be saying that there was never a promise or a pledge about an increase in police numbers. However, the Prime Minister should know and, in response to a challenge by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he said that
every single promise that we made—on getting waiting lists down, getting class sizes down and increasing police numbers—will be met by the next general election, as we said they would be."— [Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 948.]
That is completely wrong. His words prove that there was a promise, but it will be broken just like the promise on youth justice.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend paints a correct and gloomy picture, but the position is worse than perhaps he realises. In Surrey, the grant is being cut in real terms after allowing for inflation. The chief constable tells us that, if something is not done over the next three years, he will have 250 fewer officers. It is not a question of a promise of more police officers being broken, because Government policy is forcing one force to cut police numbers.

Mr. Heald: The Surrey chief constable's comments no doubt apply to other forces and show that the Home Secretary and the Minister need to tackle particular problems.

Mr. Clarke: I did not intend to intervene often, but the hon. Gentleman refers to other forces. Has he had a chance to see last Friday's statement by the chief constable of North Yorkshire and the chair of his police

authority, who said that, in March 2002, they will have more police officers than there have ever been in North Yorkshire? I refer to that force, because it covers the constituency of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Mr. Heald: The Minister must accept that taking one isolated example does not mean that one has won the argument. I know that he has not had updated projections from many forces, but the projections for wastage that were made earlier this year show that, by halfway through the year, many forces had much more than half the wastage that had been projected. We know that the Metropolitan police has had to revise its figures upwards by 25 per cent, and that resignations have increased by 60 per cent. since the general election. There is nothing to be complacent about.
My point about the Prime Minister was that he admitted both that there had been a promise to get officers back on the beat and that his promise was to increase police numbers. By the time of the next general election—assuming that it is this year, as everyone expects—there will not only be 2,500 fewer officers, but 6,300 fewer specials. This is an example of the spin that the public are getting sick of—all spin, no delivery.
On the details of the settlement, there is certainly more money this year than there was last year in terms of the rate of increase. Last year, the Opposition voted against the increase, because it simply was not enough. It is true that we also made that criticism in earlier years. The position is a bit better this year—

Mr. Wilshire: Not in Surrey.

Mr. Heald: But not in Surrey, as my hon. Friend says. Although the position is a bit better this year, it is sad that the year in which the increase comes is an election year. What happens after that? The real-terms increases are 3.5 per cent. for next year and 0.6 per cent. for the following year. The Minister must put this year's settlement in context.

Mr. Blunt: Bearing in mind that the largest increase has been made in an election year, my hon. Friend might want to note that the three police forces whose areas are represented entirely by Conservative Members—the City of London, Surrey and Dorset forces—have, for some reason, received the lowest increase in the country.

Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which reminds me of another issue. The Minister speaks a great deal about the crime fighting fund, but he fails to remember that many forces have found it impossible to recruit more officers. If a force does not recruit, it does not get the money. In respect of the forces in Hertfordshire, the City of London and another area, not one single crime fighting fund officer has been recruited, although 118 places were allocated.

Mr. Edward Davey: I am disturbed that Conservative Front Benchers are happy with the Government's grant for the police. Will the hon. Gentleman support the police grant report on that basis? The Metropolitan police have had to recruit and train 2,000 officers in order to recruit a net increase of 1,050 officers next year. That will require a 16 per cent. increase in the precept from the Greater


London Authority. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Conservative colleagues on the GLA proposed a 4 per cent. precept? Are the Conservatives in favour of police cuts in London?

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I was thinking of the circumstances in London. He suggested that it was as easy as anything to recruit, but the crime fighting fund allocated some 115 places that remain unfilled. In the past two or three years, the Government's impact on police morale has made recruitment very difficult. The ability to recruit police will not be regained until morale is improved, which means having the will to support the police and not to take the easy options.
The Minister referred to a 7.4 per cent. overall settlement. However, in terms of actual police allocation, the budgets are set to increase by about 5 per cent. Public Finance magazine states:
Police authorities are warning of a tight year ahead".
It points out that
police forces face increased costs of 5.6 per cent just to keep their heads above water".
He mentioned Northumbria, but the chief constable of Cumbria says that his force will face cuts again this year.
Will the Minister comment on the likely rise in police authority council tax precepts, which is a matter of concern to the Association of Police Authorities? He mentioned best value, but is not that concept creating huge bureaucracy? The chief constable of Lincolnshire makes this complaint:
In my force Best Value bureaucracy is costing over £400,000 a year…and we are in danger of sinking under a sea of targets and measures.
How does the Minister intend to reform best value so that it is not merely a charter for bureaucracy and red tape?
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to the three forces—Essex, Hertfordshire and the City of London—that will not receive one single officer as a result of the crime fighting fund. Will the Minister give some assurances about the ability of those forces and others to meet the continuation criteria that will allow them to access the funding next year? Have all forces met those criteria?
The Association of Police Authorities refers to the
bureaucracy and difficulty in accessing the various pockets of funding now held by the Home Office".
What does the Minister have to say about that? The APA also expresses concern about the mounting pensions bill. Just now, the Minister said a few words about addressing that issue. Last year, he said:
Pensions were mentioned by many hon. Members, who made legitimate points. That issue is difficult to deal with across government, not only in the police. As has been suggested, we need to sort it out.
He went on to say that
it has not yet been fully addressed, and it needs to be dealt with."—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1261.]
At the Police Federation conference, the Home Secretary said that the Government were
working on proposals for reform
and that
no serving officer will see his or her pension entitlement reduced.

It seems that, a year on, nothing has happened. Does the Minister have proposals on that issue, or is he planning to kick it into the long grass?

Mr. Kidney: Staffordshire has the money for recruits and the applicants to recruit, but the big obstacle is the huge proportion of the base budget that is spent on pensions. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government have any proposals; is he suggesting that the Conservatives would remove some of that burden from authorities such as Staffordshire?

Mr. Heald: Clearly, pensions are an ever larger part of the budget. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that pensions took up about 7 per cent. of the budget in 1990, and now take up about 14 per cent. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the Minister's indication that I am about right. Those figures are for the national average; the proportion may be higher in Staffordshire.
One of the reasons for that trend is falling police numbers. In a "pay as you go" scheme, the effect of having fewer contributors—we have 2,500 fewer—is that less money goes into the scheme and less comes out. There is a case for seeing what the effect would be if police numbers were restored and if police officers wanted to continue their careers for longer. That could contribute to a solution. I agree that we must consider those issues. The Government have access to actuaries and other experts who could tease out more detail. It is about time that the Government took action or explained their thinking in more detail.
Before the last general election, police capital was an important issue. This year, too, the APA has said that it is concerned about capital expenditure, saying that it
is still over 30 per cent. lower than in 1995–96"—
under the Conservatives. At that time, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said:
It is fine for Ministers to say that they will provide extra money for police officers, but, if they keep cutting the capital budget every year, how on earth is the force expected to keep up with increased expenditure on more police, uniforms and police cars…?"—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 464.]
Given that the Minister and his colleagues were complaining at a time when capital expenditure was 30 per cent. higher than it is now, will he explain what he will do about capital expenditure, or is this another case of complacency?
Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made a powerful speech on rural policing and the difficulties that Cumbria faces. I have referred to the remarks of the chief constable of Cumbria. It is time that the Minister gave a more detailed answer about what he will do to help rural areas such as Cumbria.
The Government have promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but instead they have been tough on the crime fighters. The test for the Government is whether the funding settlement will better enable the police forces of England and Wales to fight crime. The key to that is whether the Minister can tell us that there will be less bureaucracy and red tape and a more positive approach. There must be a serious effort to achieve the visible policing that we all want.
Many people would say that, so far, the Government have been complacent and have not taken the right approach to law and order. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not prepared to have a television debate during a general election campaign in which these issues could be teased out and in which he would be seriously challenged to explain why, when he promised that there would be rising police numbers, those numbers have not risen: he is frit.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I want to be brief because I know that other Members want to speak. I thought that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in opening this important debate was, as usual, of a very high standard. He outlined some of the difficulties and challenges that face the Government, as well as some of the measures that they are taking to solve problems.
I want to pay tribute to the work of Nottinghamshire police and the police authority chairman, Councillor John Clarke. The police authority, along with Nottinghamshire police, were pleased to receive a grant increase this year of 4.7 per cent., which will enable them to continue the work that they have been doing to tackle crime in the county.
Since 1997, recorded crime in Nottinghamshire has decreased by 9.9 per cent. It is worth emphasising that figure. Although there are problems, as we have heard, with violent crime and other crimes that we all deplore, real successes are being achieved through our crime-fighting initiatives.
We know that police morale may sometimes be under strain. As well as confronting the police with problems that they must deal with, we ought to congratulate them on their success in tackling certain types of crime. Considerable success has been achieved in respect of domestic burglary and car crime, and through changes to police practices and procedures for dealing with domestic violence. If we spoke about such successes, as well as the challenges that still face the police, there would be fewer problems of low morale and feelings of not being valued.
There has been a problem with police numbers. No one is disguising the fact that police numbers have fallen. In my constituency and in Nottinghamshire generally, they have fallen, but with the money that the Government have made available, particularly through the crime fighting fund, we can see that that is changing. The latest figures that I have show that in the six months from 31 March 2000 to 30 September 2000, Nottinghamshire police numbers increased by the full-time equivalent of 28.
A report to Gedling borough council's crime prevention committee showed that up to March 2002, in the divisions that cover my constituency, there will be an increase of some 60 officers. My constituents will be pleased because, as my hon. Friend the Minister and others have said, people want to see police on the street to tackle some of the problems that they see.
It is incumbent on us all, however, to support our chief constables when they say that putting police on the street is not the only way to deal with the problems that they

face. Although we all like to see police walking down the street, it is targeted policing and police intelligence that reduce crime.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He takes a serious interest in these matters, as I know from debates in Westminster Hall. Does he recognise that chief constables throughout the country are telling his Government's Ministers that it is ridiculous for an organisation to have 58 performance targets? Any serious business organisation would have no more than three targets, and preferably only one. How can the hon. Gentleman urge the House to support chief constables, when his Government are not listening to chief constables asking them to scrap the monstrous 58 performance targets?

Mr. Coaker: My interpretation of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister is that he is listening to chief constables and doing what he can to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. My point was that chief constables often have a difficult task in persuading members of the public that having a policeman or policewoman walking down the street may not be the most effective use of police time, and that the best way of tackling crime is often through police intelligence.
There is a conflict between the need to have police officers walking down the street, thereby reducing the fear of crime, and the more effective use of resources to bring crime statistics down. That is a difficult choice for our chief constables and local area commanders.
Painting a gloomy picture of the situation does not help police There are problems with police numbers, as the Government have acknowledged through establishing the crime fighting fund to increase the number of recruits and get more police on the street.
Violent crime presents challenges. No one wants violent crime, and we acknowledge that it has increased. However, we should recognise successes in tackling other forms of crime. Targeted policing, work on improving police morale and tackling the fear of crime will lead to a reduction in violent crime. Although I do not have the latest figures, I understand that they show that violent crime has decreased in some parts of the country.
Of course, police numbers, prison sentences and locking more people up are important. However, those measures alone will not reduce crime. Several hon. Members have mentioned the need to tackle the causes of crime. We should also take account of the police grant. If we do not tackle social exclusion, poor housing and other general problems in society, it will be difficult to win the battle against crime.

Mr. Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that community penalties can be as effective as locking up?

Mr. Coaker: That is a good point. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the public do not perceive community penalties as a soft option, which is the current view. However, they are a genuine alternative to prison. We lock up more people now than ever, but do we feel safer on the streets? The answer is probably no.
Let us talk up our police and remember that they have achieved significant successes in tackling a wide range of crimes. That applies to my constituency in


Nottinghamshire as well as throughout the country. If we talk about the successes of the police as well as the challenges that remain, we will do much to increase the morale of police forces throughout the country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) spoke a lot of sense. I join him and others in paying tribute to the police. We must talk up the police and their work, and we must talk up policing as a career and as a job that the country needs doing.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that there is no simple connection between police numbers and crime clear-up rates. However, I want to begin by giving an example that is linked to the debate. I have come to the House almost directly from the funeral of someone who was hacked to death nearly 14 months ago by three people—now convicted—in a flat in my constituency. He left a widow and six children; the youngest was under five. At the funeral service in Bermondsey, the widow and the family paid tribute to the police, whose dedication meant that, although they were unable to prevent the crime—it was probably immediately unpreventable because the perpetrators were so evil—they ultimately also found the pieces of the body, which had been buried. That at least allowed a funeral to take place and the family to start the next process in their lives.
Such debates are not just about numbers and budgets but about ensuring that there are adequate forces in our society to deter people more from committing crimes—and that when crimes are committed, we catch the perpetrators. That is where the police come in. Our clear-up rate for the crimes listed in the British crime survey is only 3 per cent. Our electors want us to do much better, so our police service must be adequate to the task.
I welcomed the statement on the comprehensive spending review made some months ago and the considerably greater allocation to the police for next year than for the past three years. It is a definite improvement. However, when my colleagues and I vote on the budget grant that has been proposed today, we must consider whether it is enough for the coming year.

Mr. Charles Clarke: It is never enough.

Mr. Hughes: I accept also that the Government would like to do more. However, as an opposition party, we must decide whether the allocation is enough for next year in the light of the evidence of the past three years. We have formed the view that it is not. That is not simply a subjective, party-political view; it also reflects advice from the Association of Police Authorities and others. That is why we will vote against the motion. If it is defeated, the Government will have to present a proposal for more money. That will not mean that there is no money for the police; it will mean that the police settlement has not found favour with the House. That is the way in which Opposition parties have to register their concern about the service.
I find it surprising that, when it comes to voting on the proposed budget that pays for the coppers to go out on the beat, the Conservative party—which, most of the week, is full of sound and fury about the issue—is going to vote in a way which says that it is happy with what the

Government have proposed. If the Conservatives were logical, from today on, they would stop their ranting and raving and realise that they are taking an inconsistent position. I am sad that they have bottled out just when they were expected to put their votes where their voices so loudly were.

Mr. Wilshire: Some may do so.

Mr. Hughes: To his credit, the hon. Gentleman said earlier that some Conservatives might have to register their discontent with the settlement for their counties—Surrey, in the hon. Gentleman's case—by not supporting the motion. I pay tribute to those hon. Members who do that.
Like the Minister, my colleagues and I are angry and frustrated that, through no fault of the Government or the Liberal Democrats, we have only one and a half hours for this debate. The person who objected and caused that to happen is not even here to take part. That is particularly galling. I shall be as quick as I can: I just want to make a few points on the issues that the Minister properly put before the House.
First, some parts of the country still have a very low number of police officers per head of the population. There are 43 police forces in England and Wales, some of which have fewer than 180 officers per 100,000 people. The two forces with the lowest ratios are West Mercia and Suffolk. They have little else in common: one is a partly built-up area, the other is very rural. Police numbers in the forces in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Thames Valley and Warwickshire are all below the ratio of 180 officers per 100,000 people. People in those areas have always said to me that they want an increased police presence. One of the tests, for us, is whether there are enough police on the ground across the country. In many parts of the country, the answer is no, there are not.

Mr. Edward Davey: While my hon. Friend is dealing with per capita comparisons, is he aware that comparable capital cities such as Paris and New York have far higher numbers—calculated on a per capita basis—of police officers than London? Paris has twice as many officers as London, although its population is a similar size. Does my hon. Friend not regret that, under successive Conservative and Labour Governments over the past 10 years, the numbers in the Metropolitan police have fallen?

Mr. Hughes: I do regret that. My hon. Friend—who now speaks on London matters for the Liberal Democrats, having taken over from me—has exactly the same concern in his outer London borough and constituency as I have in my inner London borough and constituency. The police in my constituency, currently coping with cases such as the Damilola Taylor murder inquiry, tell me that their numbers are down. The new Commissioner, like his predecessor, makes that case, and wants to speak to the Greater London Authority, to make the point that the police need more resources so that he can deliver what the public expect of the Metropolitan police.
There have been significant reductions in police numbers. I shall not elaborate on this in great detail, but I want to illustrate the point. In London, the figures for


the Metropolitan police have fallen from a little more than 26,500 in March 1997 to a little more than 24,500 in September 2000—the last date for which figures are available. That decrease in numbers will not deliver the policing that the public want.
The lists of police numbers have been published, and I have selected these statistics from ministerial answers, each for five police forces which have had a fall in numbers during the period that I mention. Sixteen forces have experienced falls in police numbers during the last six months for which figures are available, including Cumbria, Essex, the Metropolitan police, Suffolk and North Wales. There are 23 forces that have had a fall in the last year for which we have figures. They include Avon and Somerset—my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) intervened earlier on that subject—Dyfed-Powys, Greater Manchester, Sussex and Thames Valley. Twenty-eight forces out of the 43 have had a fall in numbers since the previous election. In addition to others I have mentioned, they include Cleveland, Derbyshire, Merseyside, Norfolk and Hampshire.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman place on record his acknowledgement that, over the six months to September last year, there was an increase of 444 officers across the country? I accept the ups and downs that he has described, but does he accept that police numbers are now going up?

Mr. Hughes: Of course I do, and the Minister knows it. He will remember that the figures were corrected on about 23 December. They at last begin to show that, from a very low base represented by a drop of thousands, numbers are beginning to climb.
There is another general point about numbers. I asked a direct question and the Home Secretary gave me an answer, which was that a reduction was expected in four forces next year—Humberside, Merseyside, the Met and West Yorkshire. Is a reduction in those forces still expected? [Interruption.] The Minister, in all honesty and perfectly acceptably, says that he does not know the answer. One reason why my hon. Friends and I will vote against the proposed settlement is that it does not even guarantee that in every force there will be an increase in the coming year. We have a duty to ensure that there is growth—not only in our constituencies, but in all places in England and Wales.

Mr. Clarke: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by guarantee in that context? Is he saying that we should take back the power for the Home Secretary to determine police numbers in every force in the country?

Mr. Hughes: The Minister and I have had that debate before. The Government came to office saying that it was up to police forces to decide police numbers, but changed that view by allocating ring-fenced money so that more officers could be recruited. I keep asking whether there will be more officers at the next election—nationally or locally in each police force area—than there were at the previous one. That now seems highly unlikely, which is another reason why we shall vote against the allocation. This budget grant is unlikely to change that. The Government came to office saying that there would be

more bobbies on the beat. That failure represents a failure to meet the promise that they made not to me alone, but to all our electors who want crime to fall and the number of police to increase.
It is obvious that not enough money has been provided, if we consider the figures for precepts likely to be levied by police authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has given me the projected figures for the south-west. The increase for Avon and Somerset is likely to be 7.5 per cent., with 5 per cent. for Devon and Cornwall, 9.7 per cent. for Dorset, 6 per cent. for Gloucestershire and 9.6 per cent. for Wiltshire. Those police authorities are having to add to the money that the Government give.
In London, the Mayor wanted a precept of 31 per cent. My colleagues wanted between 16 and 21 per cent. The Commissioner seems to want a similar figure. Bizarrely, the Tories seem to think that we can get away with 5 per cent., which no one else has been able to justify. Such a figure is entirely inconsistent with all their ranting and raving.

Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend refers to the expected 7.5 per cent. precept increase for Avon and Somerset. A large component of that increase is down to changes in the area cost adjustment and the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, which rubs salt in the wound. They do not pay for more police officers or better crime fighting, but simply apply the Government's formulae for the purposes of the rest of the country.

Mr. Hughes: Absolutely. A range of similar issues should also have been sorted out after nearly four years of Labour government. One example is the urban-rural mix, which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and acknowledged by the Minister. Forces such as Northumbria and Avon and Somerset, which police city and rural communities, clearly have an averaging out that does not reflect either their sparsity or the intensity of inner-city areas.
Furthermore, 14 per cent. of what we give to police forces is taken back to be spent on pensions for retired coppers, although a proposal for change seems to be on the table. That is a difficult issue, but I tabled a written question to the Minister almost a year ago to ask when he would tell us what he would do about police pensions. The answer was:
I hope to publish specific proposals in the spring."—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 50W.]
That meant spring 2000, but spring 2001 is almost here. So far, there ain't nothing to see. That is a big issue and another reason why we must be dissatisfied on behalf of police authorities.
There is another difficult issue. Police forces are still rewarded for failure, not success. If crime figures decrease, forces are likely to get less money, not more. That is unsatisfactory. In addition, answers have not been provided to the difficult allowances questions. The Met has had an additional allowance. The Tories, of course, made a complete hash of allowances through the implementation of the Sheehy report, which completely ruined Met recruitment. The Government have sought to correct that and, on behalf of people in London, I am grateful to them. The home counties and counties such as


Hampshire, however, about which my hon. Friends keep asking questions, also have high living costs, but do not pay the allowance that would enable them to hold on to officers and recruit the police they need.
Although I hope that the Minister will make an announcement soon, there is still no funding package to keep officers on at the end of their 30 years' service or to bring recently retired officers back. We still have not had any correct and full answer in explanation of the fact that the Home Office allocation across the next three years is 6.4 per cent. but the police allocation less than 4 per cent. Even if extras such as forensic science are included, the police figure will still not reach the Home Office average. If policing is so important, why does it not receive as great an increase as the Home Office in general? When will there be the review of the police funding formula for which police authorities around the country have been asking for about 10 years? The formula does not manage to allocate money in the way that the authorities want.
Is not that litany reason enough to vote against the settlement? if not, there is no reason to do so. I am grateful that the Government have at last realised how important the public consider adequate funding of our police to be, but, as some of us said before the election and have said every year since and although the settlement is more generous than in previous years, thank God, it does not make up for the fact that the blue line has been stretched to breaking point. Every time the police are stretched to breaking point, they become less likely to deter, less likely to detect and less likely to bring crime figures down, and it is that which all our electors want.

Mr. David Wilshire: I shall do my level best to precis my long and beautifully honed speech into the four or five minutes available. Luckily, a lot of the points that need making about the settlement as it affects my county of Surrey have been made.
The settlement for Surrey shows once again that the Government's claims are hollow—they are simply spin. The truth, at least in my county, is not as the Government claim. The truth in Surrey is simple. After allowing for inflation, there will be a 2.8 per cent. cut—not increase—in the money that Surrey receives. If that is translated straightforwardly, without other changes being made, that represents a £4 million cut over the next three years. If we cannot find other ways to handle that, it will equate to 250 fewer police officers available to fight crime in Surrey.
The truth of Labour government in my part of the world is not what the Government say through their spin. The truth is simply that Labour government in Surrey means less money for the police and fewer police officers. In fairness to the Minister, I do not blame him for that. The villains of that sorry saga are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I most certainly blame, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which administers the absolutely absurd standard spending assessment system. The Minister has no choice but to work within the constraints that are forced on him.
Indeed, the Minister has been kind enough to acknowledge that Surrey has a problem. In fact, he has gone further by undertaking to consider whether he can accept at least some of the suggestions made by Surrey MPs when we saw him a day or two ago. It would be

churlish not to place on record the thanks of all Surrey MPs for the hon. Gentleman's kindness and the positive way in which he listened to us.
The "my constituency is being treated unfairly" theme is common in the House. Sometimes it is a soundbite; sometimes it is true. I would argue that in this case it is true. In absolute terms, Surrey's grant will increase next year by 0.2 per cent, which is why, after taking account of inflation, there will be a cut. Surrounding forces will receive an average increase of 5 per cent. or perhaps more. That is unfair, and there are other examples: the grant, considered by head of population, has fallen in Surrey for four years in a row.
There is another theme that rumbles around the House—the "things are different in my constituency" theme. However, in this case, things really are different in Surrey. Again, let me be fair to the Minister. He was good enough to acknowledge that the police boundary change that has moved the whole of my constituency, and other areas, from the Metropolitan police district to the Surrey district has produced turmoil and cost.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Wilshire: I have no time to give way.
In the context of turmoil, the Minister referred to 500 officer movements. The Government have tried to help, and I thank them for that. Indeed, I am doubly grateful, because the Minister said he would give careful consideration to the information that the chief constable had promised to send him. The hon. Gentleman also kindly said that he would consider the General Pinochet case again. That cost us £1.2 million, although it was not our choice to put the general under house arrest in Surrey: the matter was a national issue for which we had to pick up the bill.
We in Surrey are being treated unfairly. Ours are special circumstances: we are different. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that. The reality in Surrey is the opposite of the Government's claim: it is "less money, fewer police officers." I repeat, however, that this is not the Minister's fault. He is trying very hard to help. Indeed, I suggest—to ruin his career—that he is too nice to be a Labour Minister. Let me end by urging the hon. Gentleman—in order to enhance the reputation that he has gained with Surrey's MPs—to think about what we said to him, look back on the proposals that we made, accept that they are reasonable and sensible, and agree with them.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I have two questions. First, why is less being spent per head on policing in Wales than in England? In 1999–2000, England received £140.39 while Wales received £125.49. In the current year, England has received £147 and Wales £132. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (1)

The House divided: Ayes 309,Noes49.

Division No. 95]
[6.2 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Ainger, Nick
(Copeland)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Atherton, Ms Candy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Austin, John
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Bailey, Adrian
(B'ham Hodge H)


Banks, Tony
Dismore, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Dobbin, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Beard, Nigel
Doran, Frank


Begg, Miss Anne
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Drew, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Drown, Ms Julia


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Edwards, Huw


Best, Harold
Efford, Clive


Betts, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blackman, Liz
Ennis, Jeff


Blears, Ms Hazel
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Galloway, George


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Burgon, Colin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyih V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grocott, Bruce


Cawsey, Ian
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Church, Ms Judith
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hendrick, Mark


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Hutton, John





Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


lllsley, Eric
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Organ, Mrs Diana


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pickthall, Colin


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Marryn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Joyce, Eric
Pound, Stephen


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rapson, Syd


Lammy, David
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Robertson, John


Laxton, Bob
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Lepper, David
Rogers, Allan


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sawford, Phil


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mahon, Mrs Alice
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meale, Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Merron, Gillian
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Milbum, Rt Hon Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stringer, Graham


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
(Dewsbury)


(B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, David (NWLeics)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Fit Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Truswell, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)






Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wilson, Brian


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tynan, Bill
Woodward, Shaun


Vis, Dr Rudi
Woolas, Phil


Ward, Ms Claire
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Wray, James


watts,David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Watts, David
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


White, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. David Jamieson.


(Swansea W)





NOES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Baker, Norman
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ballard, Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Beggs, Roy
Livsey, Richard


Beith, RtHon A J
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Burnett, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Sanders, Adrian


Chidgey, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Chope, Christopher
Stunell, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Feam, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil


Gidley, Sandra
Wilshire, David


Hancock, Mike



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Noes:


Harvey, Nick
Sir Robert Smith and Mr. David Heath.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2001–02 (HC 156), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Local Government Finance (England)

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001–02 (HC 158), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
We would normally debate the two motions on local government finance in one debate, but I understand that some Conservative Members objected to that idea. I apologise to the House for that because I know that many Back Benchers want to speak on the main motion, but that is not in the hands of those on the Government Benches. Juvenile games seem to be the order of the day among Conservative Members, so we will just have to indulge them.
High-quality public services are the foundation of strong communities. The investment that we are announcing today will help ensure that councils throughout the country can continue to improve the quality of our local environment, to help tackle crime, to raise standards in our schools and to care for the most vulnerable members of our society.
The Government believe in the value of public services and are committed to ensuring that all our public services have the investment that they need to meet the aspirations and expectations of the public. That is why, since we came to office, we have invested an additional £8 billion, an increase of 14 per cent. in real terms, in grant support, compared with a 7 per cent. reduction during the last four years of the previous Administration's period in office. It is why I am pleased to announce that this year's settlement—£44.6 billion in total support from Government grant and business rates, an increase of £3 billion, or 7.2 per cent. —represents the best settlement for local government since the introduction of the council tax.
That does not mean that I am oblivious to the difficult choices that many authorities have to make and the challenges that face local communities.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister seems to be judging the quality of services by the amount of other people's money spent on them. In that case, will she comment on the fairly strong story that the new Mayor, a monster that she has unleashed on London, proposes to put his precept up by some 33 per cent., bearing in mind that, at the referendum, the Government said that the increase would be 3p a week for Londoners?

Ms Armstrong: I made it absolutely clear that budget setting is for local councils; it is not for the Government to determine what those budgets should be. We seek to provide sufficient resources for authorities to budget in a manner ensuring that, with best value, services improve annually. I also know that the Greater London Authority is considering with great alacrity the Mayor's budget proposals.
We are also providing for substantially increased capital investment by local government in long-term infrastructure improvements. Total local authority capital investment is planned to be £6.1 billion in 2001–02, increasing to £8 billion in 2003–04. That has been welcomed across local government. Furthermore,we have replaced the boom and bust and cuts climate of the


previous Conservative Government, which undermined local public services, with economic stability and reasonable certainty about future funding. To be wise spenders, councils need to be able to plan ahead.
We already publish three-year plans for total general grant and limit the extent to which the grant formula will change. From this year, we are going further and providing information on the majority of capital allocations and specific grants on a three-year basis. Councils across the country have welcomed that change.
As I made clear to the House in November, the operation of the general grant distribution formula for 2001–02, if left unchecked, would produce an unacceptably wide range of outcomes. Some authorities would receive grant increases of about 10 per cent., whereas others would see their grant cut in real terms. That cannot be right. The reasons for the variation are large changes in the estimated population of local authority areas and changes in the earnings data used to calculate the area cost adjustment.
We have always made it clear that we shall take new data into account in the formula. However, as I also explained to the House in November, to prevent those changes in data from undermining delivery of the Government's priorities of education and social services—I believe that people and their local councils agree about those priorities—I announced that I would set a floor and a ceiling on the general grant increase received by any authority with education and social services responsibilities.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the floor that she introduced which has given Plymouth an additional £2 million over and above what it would have received under the formula invented by the Conservative Government? However, may I ask her to nail the story being put about in Plymouth by the leader of the local Tory-controlled council, who claims that Plymouth is always at the bottom of the pile when it comes to local government finance? [Interruption.] Will she also nail his claim—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must know that there is very limited time for this debate. Interventions must be extremely brief on this occasion.

Ms Armstrong: I am very happy to nail that claim, and suspect that other hon. Members in the Chamber have nailed it fairly effectively. Almost every authority that comes to see me claims that it is at the bottom of the pile. The reality is that all local authorities have benefited significantly since this Government came to power. We have reversed the cuts that were made by the previous Administration and built on the available new investment.
In November, I proposed a floor increase of 3.2 per cent. and a ceiling of 6.5 per cent. As expected, a broad range of views emerged from consultation on that proposal.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I suspect that I am about to hear another view.

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for giving way. The reality of the floor and the ceiling is of course

that the floor is just a damping system—a continuation of the system operated by the previous Administration and dealt with, as I understand it, in the next report on special grant. As a result of the ceiling, however, those councils whose standard spending assessments reveal greater need than others will lose out. Moreover, those authorities will lose again because of the funding reshuffle between the ceiling and the floor. Approximately 400 authorities across the country will receive less than that necessary to deal with their problems, as revealed by the needs indices.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman—for reasons that I totally understand—has absolute faith in the SSA system and the distribution system, but I do not. I think that there are still flaws in that system, and that the use of the mechanism of floors and ceilings recognises that system's problems and tries to ameliorate them. He is right that the previous Conservative Government—he was an Environment Minister in that Administration—introduced damping grants. However, they never introduced anything like a base level grant increase of at least 3.2 per cent.
There was broad agreement on the concept of the floor, but views differed on how it should be paid for. Given that the overall total for distribution is fixed, I could not agree to proposals for funding the floor with extra resources. I considered carefully the proposition that the burden should be shared among local authorities by top-slicing the total grant—which was the method usually used by the Conservative Government—but that would require authorities to contribute in proportion to their council tax base. In other words, the authorities that were not receiving a large increase would have had to contribute even more to the floor than they would using the scaling factor that I propose.
I therefore concluded that a better approach was to allocate contributions to the floor in relation to the size of the increase received by authorities above the floor. It is still my view that it would be best to set limits on what would otherwise be a very wide range of grant increases because that would have made service planning very difficult for authorities.
I am therefore confirming my proposal to set a floor of 3.2 per cent. and a ceiling of 6.5 per cent. on general grant increases for authorities with responsibility for education and social services. A 6.5 per cent. increase in general grant should be sufficient for most ceiling authorities, even after allowing for the fact that they have growing populations, and particularly when many of them are receiving substantial sums in other grants. A 3.2 per cent. increase is reasonable for floor authorities, taking into account the fact that most of them face population reductions. Those increases will be topped by significant increases in other grants.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I do not think that it is fair simply to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will attempt later to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
Following careful consideration, I proposed to make one exception to the ceiling rule. Quite exceptional circumstances apply to the Isles of Scilly council, and it is always treated separately within the settlement.


It cannot avoid substantial capital expenditure to maintain essential waste disposal services. That capital expenditure should receive revenue support in the usual manner, through Government grant. If I treated the Isles of Scilly council on exactly the same basis as all other authorities with education and social services responsibilities, however, that extra revenue support would take its grant increase above the ceiling. Its annual budget is extremely small, and it would clearly have exceptional difficulty accommodating the expenditure. I shall therefore not limit its grant increase this year.
For local authorities that do not have education and social services responsibilities, no floors or ceilings will be imposed. I intend to continue the guarantee provided for the past two years that no such authority will receive less central support from the Government in 2001–02 than in 2000–01.
Of course, I know that the grant distribution system that we inherited attracts a lot of criticism—not least from Labour Members. It has not made it easy for authorities to plan ahead to improve their services. It does not encourage authorities to take responsibility for their budget choices. It is also very difficult for people to understand. It is small wonder that authorities continue to doubt its fairness.

Mr. David Drew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for receiving representations in regard to Gloucestershire's fire and rescue service, but will she listen again to our special plea about our standard spending assessment? Having managed to negotiate an increase of 1.4 per cent. down to 1.3 per cent., I hope that I can be more successful when I lobby her in the future.

Ms Armstrong: There are special problems in Gloucestershire that I discussed with my hon. Friend earlier today. They result from a blip in the figures this year. It is not right that the formula should respond in the way that it has, and that is why we are reviewing the distribution system. I hope, by taking account of matters such as that, that we can create a fairer system.
We are not rushing to hasty solutions, as some would urge. We are building a consensus on the way forward with local government and other stakeholders. We have received a massive response to our Green Paper—more than 16,000 replies. We are currently finalising our analysis of those responses and the details will be published on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions website by the beginning of March.
However, this settlement must not been seen in isolation. The Government have responded to specific pressures in four areas. First, we have looked again at the funding position of authorities with the most serious deprivation problems. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 24 January a doubling of the provision for the neighbourhood renewal fund in 2001–2002, from £100 million to £200 million. These additional resources will help local authorities improve their mainstream services in the most deprived neighbourhoods.
Secondly, in some areas where there have been serious floods this year, authorities faced the prospect of an increased levy from the Environment Agency to cover the costs incurred in dealing with them. My hon. Friend the

Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has responsibility for the countryside and fisheries, announced on 26 January that he will provide an additional £11.6 million for the Environment Agency, to limit the burden falling on local authorities.

Mr. Don Foster: Is the £11.6 million genuinely new money, or is it part of the £51 million over four years announced by the Chancellor some months ago?

Ms Armstrong: I understand that £11.6 million was included in the spending review, but not in the £51 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), announced on 26 January additional funding of £25 million to help local authorities facing significant increases in the cost of housing homeless households in temporary accommodation. This will help all authorities that are in that position, including those accommodating large numbers of asylum seekers.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 29 January a new grant of £52 million to provide help in meeting education spending pressures to those education authorities with the lowest increases in education funding from other sources.

Mr. David Taylor: In recent years, Leicestershire has languished at the bottom of the county league table in respect of the amount of SSA granted per pupil in both primary and secondary schools. The extra £100,000 announced just days ago compares with a shortfall of £12 million. On that basis, it will take more than a century for us to reach the average county level. By the time that gap has been fully bridged, children in Leicestershire will probably be rather too old to benefit.

Ms Armstrong: I understand the concern of my hon. Friend, who has constantly paid attention to these matters and made representations about them on behalf of his constituency. However, he has not taken into account the ring-fenced grants that Leicestershire has received this year. They amount to an increase of about 24.6 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment took that into account in calculating the money from the £52 million.

Mr. Steve Webb: Before she moves away from the subject of the money announced on Monday, will the Minister explain the exact mechanism by which Bristol council received £700,000? None of the other three former Avon authorities, which include South Gloucestershire, are Labour controlled. They received only £100,000. What formula lay behind those allocations?

Ms Armstrong: I have already said that other funding that councils have received was weighed against the pressures that they face. [Interruption.] The Department for Education and Employment gave a clear indication of the criteria that were taken into account when calculating the amounts disbursed. It allocated £100,000 to all authorities that have not benefited from the


neighbourhood renewal fund. The sum involved totals £8 million. Those authorities that face the greatest pressure as a result of the transfer of adult education funding to the Learning and Skills Council were also compensated.
I suspect that gains and losses would have been equally distributed among the authorities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. A note from the Department for Education and Employment shows that consideration was given to the way in which pressures on authorities from pay, prices and increased contributions to the standards fund compared with their increase in education SSA and the funding that I have outlined. It is clear, therefore, that the Department for Education and Employment took into account pressures faced by authorities, and the moneys that they had already received. It made its calculations on that basis.

Mr. John McDonnell: It is clear that the formula has produced some anomalies. For example, outer-London boroughs facing severe teacher shortages are not getting significant sums in additional benefit under this formula, but neither are they getting it from funding under the education action zone or excellence in the cities schemes.

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend must take that up with the Department for Education and Employment. Under this settlement, outer London did especially well overall.
No doubt Conservative Members will predict council tax increases, as they have every year since we came to office. I understand that they are talking about an increase of 9.1 per cent. Every year they are proved wrong. The rate of council tax increase continues to decline. They were miles out last year, and I suspect that they will be miles out again this year.
The Government will not indulge in such fruitless speculation, and it would not be right for me to make predictions about what are essentially local decisions made by authorities accountable to local people. What is important is that local authorities consult local people and consider fully the scope for cost effectiveness before setting their budgets.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Armstrong: I am anxious to make progress.

Mr. Waterson: I should have thought it customary to give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in a debate such as this. The Minister cannot get away with what she has said. She has suggested that she expects increases to be below 6.1 per cent. Will she give the House some idea of how much below that figure the increases will be?

Ms Armstrong: I have continually said that I expect that, for most authorities, the rate of council tax increase will continue to decline. Labour authorities have the lowest council tax bills, whereas councils controlled by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties cost people £100 a year more, on average. In line with our

commitment to local accountability, we abolished crude and universal capping and no longer set authorities' spending limits in advance. In general, councils have responded well to this approach in the past two years. Local authorities also made representations on council tax benefit subsidy limitation. I have considered these carefully, but have decided to make no change to the scheme that I proposed on 27 November, as amended on 15 December.
This local government settlement forms an important part of the Government's commitment to public services. We are working together with local government to provide a stable financial and planning environment for delivering better services. We have consistently put additional investment into local government and, by managing the economy in the way that we are, we will continue to seek to do so.
Our proposals for 2001–02 have been widely welcomed by local government because they complement the reform and the work in which local government is involved. It is true that local government continues to want to do more and the Government will work with it to ensure that that is possible.
I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: This is a Government who live and will die by spin. As we have seen in the events surrounding the second resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), this is the Government of the short cut, the quick fix, the nod and the wink.
The Minister would have us believe that this financial settlement for local government is arrived at gravely and deliberately, with no political input. She talks about stability and even of a freeze in standard spending assessment methodology. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The plain truth is that the Government have found themselves in a tight corner over the new earnings data for the area cost adjustment. So before the recent statement, we had the introduction of floors and ceilings, despite the fact that we are supposed to be having a freeze while Ministers mull over the reaction to their Green Paper.
There are three real concerns about the floors and ceilings. First, they provide the prospect of distortion by introducing these mechanisms, complicating an already complex system. Secondly, if the statistical data are reliable and show that a particular council has sustained these extra costs in their area, they should be fully reflected in the grant system. The system would surely be more defensible if it related to what happens in the real world. Thirdly, there is the real possibility, now and in the future, of political interference by Ministers in how the grant is distributed between one part of the country and another. We see the system as a way of shifting resources to some Labour-run authorities and marginal seats around the country.
We must remember that shire counties will have lost out in this Parliament to the tune of £700 million as a direct result of changes in methodology at the beginning


of the Government's term in office. All this talk of stability merely cements in these unfairnesses. The London boroughs have lost out by some £350 million.

Ms Armstrong: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was interested in the plain truth. The plain truth is that if we had continued with the Tories' figures, all authorities would have lost substantially more. What the hon. Gentleman means is that by changing methodology, we achieved a fairer system of distribution. All authorities have gained by substantially more than the figures that he has quoted, including London and the shire counties.

Mr. Waterson: Somebody who does not agree that we have a fairer system is the Mayor of London, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). He said
the faceless bureaucrats normally hidden in the bowels of John Prescott's super ministry deserve a good kicking because of the Government's whacking cuts to the poorest London councils.
Ever since the statement on the provisional settlement, the ground has shifted again. The Times reported that there were crisis talks between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor. It said:
the package was agreed on after crisis talks between Mr. Prescott and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor. There had been fears that the impact of projected increases of up to three times the rate of inflation would cost Labour dozens of seats at the election.
I see that some of those seats are represented in the Chamber tonight.
Lo and behold, Ministers rushed out an announcement of a £100 million emergency package—money diverted from the neighbourhood renewal fund—to keep down council tax increases in a large number of marginal Labour seats such as Enfield, which has a majority of 1,433, Bristol, West, where the majority is 1,493 and Hastings, where it is just over 2,500.

Mrs. Gilroy: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Is he saying that the Tory-controlled Plymouth city council should not have been given the £2 million that it received as a floor for the area cost adjustment, and that we should not have the neighbourhood renewal fund?

Mr. Waterson: No, of course I am not saying that. I am simply saying that it is curious how a significant number of Labour marginal seats seem suddenly to have benefited from this largesse.
Another £25 million popped up so that some councils could tackle homelessness. It is interesting that the problems caused by asylum seekers featured prominently in the relevant press release, despite the Government's dismal failure on this aspect of their policy.
Another £11.6 million was suddenly found to help councils that have suffered particularly badly in the recent flooding. Similarly, a sum of £52 million has been found for education. There are concerns as to whether that is all new money or merely recycled or reheated announcements of old money.
We all know about the problems faced across the country, including in my area, with regard to bed blocking and the crisis in social services. That is addressed only partly by recent extra funding in some areas for the national health service.
This all amounts to what some commentators have called a pattern of behaviour in the context of the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool. As The Times put it, this brings to £189 million the amount of cash the Cabinet has rushed together since the Government unveiled their initial local government settlement in November.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that under a Conservative Government, that money would not have been provided to those areas where it is clearly urgently needed?

Mr. Waterson: I think that the answer is clear: we need to look at the settlement in the round and see the unfairnesses that are being created across the country.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the muddle between the floors and ceilings has enabled the Government to have more money to distribute by selection rather than by an assessment of needs?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. David Taylor: rose—

Mr. Waterson: No, I will not give way any more at the moment.
What comments have come forth on this extra largesse? Sir Jeremy Beecham, the Labour head of the Local Government Association, said:
we do regret the increase of expenditure being passed through specific grants, which are too tightly controlled by Whitehall, and therefore limit the degree of choice in assessing particular local needs.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who I see is in the Chamber, is one of a number of Labour Back Benchers who feel that their areas have been treated unfairly. He said in a recent letter:
Outrageously, the data benefits those authorities already gaining from Area Cost Adjustment…To deflect criticism of this further injustice, DETR has put forward the 'floor and ceiling' proposals.
The hon. Gentleman makes the obvious point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) a moment ago, that as a result of bringing in the ceilings and floors, all other authorities must receive less grant to pay for the difference. This means that the 103 authorities between the floor and the ceiling lose about 4 per cent. of grant that they would have received under the old system. [Interruption.] The Minister says no, but she must sort out her differences with the hon. Member for Stafford in some other place.
The hon. Gentleman talks about making representations to the Minister. He said:
It was evident that the DETR has a block of money to distribute. The Minister can slice the block one way or another way".
Clearly, a decision has been taken to slice it in a way that might help electorally.
The hon. Gentleman talks about meetings with the Secretary of State and the Chancellor and ends on a forlorn note:
I doubt that we will persuade them to meet us in person".

Mr. David Kidney: In areas such as Staffordshire, the great anger is that the area cost


adjustment has nothing to do with need—it is not a proven figure on which to rely. Will the hon. Gentleman say on behalf of the official Opposition whether he will stand by the area cost adjustment as a legitimate way to dispose of money to local authorities?

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. When we find out what situation we have inherited, with all these floors and ceilings, we will take a view on the matter.

Mr. Kidney: rose—

Mr. Waterson: I will not give way again.
Of course, some areas benefit substantially from the area cost adjustment, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Those are the verdicts of some people who ought to know about the figures. Why are Ministers and Labour Back Benchers panicking so much in the run-up to the election? It is because we are talking about yet another broken election promise. When the Prime Minister said,
we have no plans to increase tax at all",
he clearly hoped that people would assume that he was not talking about council tax. The fact is that the average band D council tax increased this year from £689 in 1997–78 to £847, or by 23 per cent. On average, it has soared by three times the rate of inflation. By the time of the next election, the average British family could be paying an extra £200 in council tax alone.
This year, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is being coy, but last year she predicted that council tax would rise by an average of 4.8 per cent. It rose by 6.1 per cent. Have we any reason to believe that her predictions this year would be any more reliable? The Department talks about a 5 per cent. increase in the coming year. The Minister declines the opportunity to predict the rise, talking about "fruitless speculation".
Incidentally, the Minister trots out the old chestnut, trying to suggest that comparing band D bills is not appropriate. Peter Kellner—not exactly a Conservative commentator—said:
Homes in Labour areas tended to fall into lower council tax bands and this was why average council tax was lower … The proper way to judge the figures was to compare like with like … Band D figures, council by council".
He went on to point out that Labour's
claim is as misleading as it ever was…On this issue, Labour is wrong and Tories are right.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on tax increases?

Mr. Waterson: No.

Mr. Davies: I thought not.

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman can try to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye.
The Minister will not engage in what she calls "fruitless speculation", so we have been doing some research of our own. We have done a sample survey of councils throughout England. Our survey reveals—it is early days,

as councils are still setting their budgets—that council tax could increase by 9 per cent. this year, putting £77 on the average band D council tax bill.
What is particularly worrying—it may worry the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) as much as anyone—is that council tax has risen by 25 per cent. in the past three years in Labour's top 25 marginal constituencies. The projected percentage change in council tax in those seats, from 1997–98 to 2001–02, is a staggering 33 per cent. That is a staggering extra stealth tax on the British people. For all the hon. Members whose names are on that list of marginal seats, it is a worrying development.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to hear from Worcestershire, where there are three marginal Labour seats and three Conservative-held seats. A Labour council has been in charge for the past four years, during which time council tax has risen by 50 per cent. This year everyone has a choice. On a Worcestershire council website one can choose a council tax increase of 7.5 per cent., 10.5 per cent. or 13.5 per cent. Only with the latter figure will there not be a cut in services.

Mr. Waterson: That says it all about what is happening in the real world.

Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that matter?

Mr. Waterson: In a moment, but let me finish on this point. There is no need for the Minister to get aggressive.
I enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) recently with the delegation of head teachers from Worcestershire, who brought to this place all the concerns of hundreds of teachers and thousands of parents about the massive problems being caused in the education system by lack of Government funding.

Ms Armstrong: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants to encourage large tax increases? I refer him to Essex, which is a county that the Conservative party runs, although only just. The leader of that council said that this year it would have the largest council tax rise of any county council. That is against the background of Essex county council receiving a total increase in spending of 7.3 per cent. this year, and that does not include the extra £100,000 that it is getting in education money. Should any authority be talking about high council taxes and rises when it is getting an increase of 7.3 per cent. from external funding?

Mr. Waterson: That shows what the Minister is seeking to achieve. By starving Conservative-controlled councils of the funding that they need, she is trying to provoke a situation in which they are blamed for having to increase the council tax beyond what is reasonable.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Waterson: I will not give way any more at the moment.
Those council tax rises hit some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The figures show that one third of the increase in the state pension under this Government has been eaten up by soaring council taxes. In the past three years, the state pension has risen by £421, whereas the average band D council tax bill has risen by £158, which is equivalent to 38 per cent. of the pension rise. That is a staggering amount for elderly people to have to find.
Despite what I was saying about the Government starving many Conservative-dominated areas of funding, Conservative councils still have the lowest council taxes. In the coming year, a typical band D household is paying £724 under the average Conservative-controlled council compared with £124 more—almost £2.50 a week—under a Labour-controlled council.
In case the Liberal Democrats think that they are going to escape scot free. I should point out that the average band D tax in the councils that they control is £803, which is over 10 per cent. more than in Conservative-controlled councils. Of course, the Liberal Democrats now preside over Liverpool, which is the council with the highest council tax in England. A band D tax payer there now pays nearly £100 a week.
That is not the end of the bad news for ordinary citizens, as it is evident for all to see that, far from delivering greater efficiency and accountability in local government, the Government's best value regime is producing a bloated bureaucracy and heavy additional costs for already hard-pressed councils. The Government have allocated £40 million for best value and the Local Government Association has demanded an extra £175 million.
The Government are forging ahead with their centralising agenda for local government. They are busily imposing the cabinet system on the majority of local authorities. Only a few days ago, they forced through the House their misguided plans for greater secrecy in local government. The inexorable rise of specific grants as a proportion of Government grant means the tightening of central Government control over local government—there has been a rise in just one year of 18 per cent. in the proportion of specific grants.
On top of that, we have the Minister's continued boast that capping has been abolished. Of course, no such thing has happened. The Government have not scrapped crude and universal capping—I notice that in last year's Hansard that came out as "cruel" and universal capping, but in the Minister's lexicon, that amounts to the same thing. That remains as a reserve power. There is also the so-called "refined" capping on the council tax benefit limitation scheme.
As if all that were not bad enough, the Labour Government are planning a raft of new taxes on local communities: congestion taxes; workplace parking taxes; and supplementary business rates. The Government have been an unmitigated disaster for local government and for the communities served by local government. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the report.

7 pm

Mr. Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate. I am sure that many other Members want to speak, so I shall try to keep my contribution brief.

I must point out, however, that the amount of time allowed for this important debate is scandalous; many hon. Members will not have an opportunity to contribute.
Members on both sides of the House will agree that what local government needs more than anything else is a fair funding grant system, based on definable need. I am sure that one thing that will emerge from the debate is that the current system does not fulfil that basic criterion. I imagine that the reactions of hon. Members to this year's settlement, which was announced in the House on 18 December, will largely depend on the class of authority that they represent.
The average settlement for metropolitan authorities outside London was 3.8 per cent; for shire and unitary authorities, it was 4.9 per cent; and for London authorities, it was 6 per cent. Barnsley received an additional 3.2 per cent. and Doncaster received 3.6 per cent.—both of which are below the metropolitan average.
I know that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has received many representations from all classes of authority, especially from non-London metropolitan authorities, about this year's settlement. There is no doubt that the Government have listened to their representations. They can be proud that they have increased standard spending assessments by an average of 4.3 per cent. in each year since taking office. The average of the last four years under the Tories was a paltry 1.5 per cent.
Additional support outside the rate support grant settlement has been found so as to ease specific pressures on councils. The Government have increased by £100 million the first-year allocation to the new neighbourhood renewal fund; that is targeted support for local authorities representing the 88 most deprived neighbourhoods. Indeed, Barnsley received an additional £1.3 million and Doncaster received an additional £2.2 million in such funding.
There is no doubt that my constituency is one of the most deprived in the country. Last year, it was calculated that the gross domestic product per capita in Barnsley, East and Mexborough was only 62 per cent. of the European average. I understand that is the lowest in the UK—no wonder Barnsley and Doncaster and the rest of South Yorkshire qualify for objective 1 funding from Europe.
Barnsley and Doncaster will also benefit from the additional £11.6 million flood relief funding allocated to the Environment Agency to relieve pressure on council tax payers in flood-affected areas. They will share the additional £52 million education budget support grant for local authorities that received more modest increases in education funding from the RSG. Doncaster will receive an additional £880,000, but unfortunately Barnsley will receive only an additional £180,000.
The Government have thus responded positively to local authority concerns, but local authorities such as Barnsley and Doncaster, languishing at the bottom of the SSA league, need not additional pockets of grant aid but fundamental changes to the local government funding system. I know that the Government are committed to such changes. Until we address the inherent problems embedded in the current SSA formula-funded grant system, local authorities at the bottom of the SSA league will always struggle.
Next year's budget for Barnsley and Doncaster—the two local authorities that I represent—will be extremely tight, but of the two, Barnsley's position is by far the more difficult to address. Data changes and the area cost adjustment have resulted in a loss of about £2.2 million to Barnsley.
The Government's ceilings and floors concept is good in principle, but, as it operates at present, it does not close the gap. Indeed, it has a perverse impact, as the poor pay for the poor. Barnsley pays £100,000 into the fund to ameliorate Liverpool's losses and Doncaster pays back £218,000. Even after those additional resources, Barnsley still faces estimated cuts of about £11 million over the next two years.
I fully support the Government requirement to passport moneys to key priority services, such as education, social services and highways, but it means that nearly all the reductions under consideration will fall on the "other services" block. By how much will the "other services" block grant be increased next year?
That block covers general community services, so the impact of cuts will be felt in reductions in, for example, welfare rights—a service that Barnsley can ill afford to cut. One in three households in my constituency include at least one disabled person. As a Government, we are trying to encourage the take-up of initiatives such as the minimum income guarantee. If we cut welfare rights officers in Barnsley, we shall not achieve that.
Barnsley is having to consider reductions in land reclamation. Our reclamation programme is extremely large because of the legacy of the former mining industry. The need to clear up our industrial eyesores is drastic if we are to succeed in attracting new inward investors to Barnsley. We shall have to consider reductions in economic development and regeneration initiatives. Barnsley and Doncaster are in an objective 1 area, yet no additional resources can be allocated to meet councils' contribution to capital and revenue schemes.
We might have to consider reducing services such as trading standards, environmental health and street cleansing. The irony is that those reductions would fall on the very services that have been determined as priorities by the local community, through local area forums and strategic local partnerships. The Minister is aware that Barnsley has probably led the way in adopting the cabinet system; we did so long before it was made compulsory, as it were. We are working hard to the Government's modernisation agenda.
Significant job losses are expected because of Barnsley's budgetary position. It is anticipated that about 225 full-time equivalent posts will be lost, with an associated cost of about £1.8 million. Unfortunately, such costs cannot be prudently met from balances; the authority's external auditor has already determined that they are inadequate, so such additional one-off costs will have to be met from further cuts. Will the Minister consider our authority for additional help—for example, via the capitalisation of such one-off costs with an appropriate allowance from supplementary credit approvals?
I know that the Government are wholly committed to the successful future of local government and the valuable services that it provides. The Government must realise,

however, that the current SSA system was set up by the previous Conservative Government specifically to disadvantage certain classes of local authority, which include Barnsley and Doncaster in the traditional Labour heartlands. The only way in which we can successfully address the bias inherent in the existing system is to introduce a more transparent and simpler funding regime based on local need. The sooner after the general election that the next Labour Government bring in such a system, the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). I share his concerns about the lack of time allocated to this very important debate and about the current mechanism for funding local government, which, as he rightly pointed out, was introduced by the previous Government but which many of us hoped would have been changed by now.
I do not want to belittle some of the improvements that the Government have made to the funding arrangements for local government, not least the significant improvements in capital funding, but I do suggest that the Minister over-egged the pudding in her statements tonight and over recent days.
How can it be, as the Minister tells us, the most wonderful settlement for local government ever, when her hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough told us about the cuts in services that his local council will have to make, which I fear will be reflected in many other councils around the country?
We welcome the money that has been announced in the past few days, in addition to the amounts that were announced in the statement in November 2000, but even the recent announcement contains an element of hype. For example, the Minister tells us that there will be an additional £100 million for the neighbourhood renewal scheme, which she would argue brings the total to £200 million. She does not tell us that when the Chancellor initially announced £100 million for the scheme, the Red Book shows that he was also cutting £160 million from the new deal for the communities scheme, which was designed to do the same thing. As a result, even with the additional £100 million that has just been announced, the net increase is £40 million.
Similarly, when I intervened on the Minister a few minutes ago, she acknowledged that the £11.6 million of so-called additional money to help with flood defences was not new money at all, but was from some pot—she could not quite recall which—that the Chancellor had previously announced.
Despite all the arguments that we could have about likely council tax rises, the reality is that increases will be significantly above the inflation rate, despite what the Government are doing. The electorate want to know how that is the case.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman promises to be quick.

Mr. Bercow: I understand and sympathise with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but in judging


the adequacy or otherwise of revenue spending will he tell us what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not want to be drawn into discussing all the details. One of our current problems is that the capital financing system for local government is hugely complex. The one thing that I would love to see more than any other is the introduction of a system that enables our local councils to borrow the money that they judge they need, pure and simple, without all the bureaucracy and complexity. Our problem derives from the decision by the current Government and the previous Conservative Government to adopt a model that is designed to keep as many hands on the tiller as possible, denying local authorities freedom.
That observation leads me very nicely to the subject of freedom for local government, and the problems associated with funding mechanisms. Increasingly, central Government want local government to do more and more—for example, with personal social services—but do not necessarily make available the necessary resources. Our social services departments had already decided that, in the current financial year, they would have to spend well above standard spending assessment, especially on children's services. On average, social services departments are spending 27.4 per cent. more on children's services than the Government expected them to spend. That amounts to £550 million.
Only yesterday, the Local Government Association completed a survey of social services departments, which showed that they budgeted to spend much more than the Government expected. Those departments, collectively, are already £205 million overspent at this stage of the financial year. No wonder local councils up and down the land are unconvinced that the settlement for next year, as described today, will be sufficient to help them to repay the losses that they are making this year, let alone take account of their rising costs.
Rising costs are certainly not being funded by the Government. My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, has drawn my attention to the fact that a huge inconsistency between the capital asset thresholds determined by the Department of Social Security and by the Department of Health is to be introduced. That inconsistency will cost my local authority £100,000 in additional costs, which will not be met.
It gets worse. I welcome the Government's announcement in their NHS plan that they intend to boost the quality and availability of intermediate care to reduce the phenomenon of bed blocking. They say that, over three years, that will cost about £900 million, but they expect local government to provide most of the services to meet that aspiration. I have checked today with the Local Government Association, which has analysed the Minister's statement today and can see no evidence of any resources being made available in next year's settlement to help personal social services departments to pay for the boost to intermediate care. It is a further additional burden that local authorities are obliged to fund from their own budgets, which are already stretched to breaking point.
The Government will undoubtedly make an announcement about the teachers' pay award in the next few days. I hope very much that it will be a good

settlement; we desperately need it. Last September, we were 4,000 teachers short. Pupil-teacher ratios in secondary schools are now at their worst for more than 20 years. We desperately need to do something about that shortage. However, if that good teachers' pay award—some are now talking of figures as high as 3.7 per cent.—is not fully funded by the Government, it will impose huge pressures on our local councils, whose education budgets, too, are already massively overstretched.
It is no wonder, given those additional pressures, that council taxes are set to increase by significantly more than the rate of inflation. The Minister is not prepared to put a figure on it. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) put a figure on it of about 9 per cent. I shall place on the record our figure, because I gave it last November and the evidence suggests that I am yet again likely to be right. I predict an increase of 6.7 per cent., but time will tell. However, the Minister, with her indication, the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I all predict that council taxes across the land will increase by more than the rate of inflation. That is the fault not of local government but of the local government finance settlement from this Labour Government.
The speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne fascinated me. He says that we should deal with what is out there in the real world, but when he trots out the figures he uses council tax band D figures when it suits him and percentage increases when it suits him better. Let me choose one measure at random—the percentage increase—and remind the House that, for the financial year that has just been completed, the average council tax increase was 6 per cent. under a Liberal Democrat authority, 6.2 per cent. under a Labour authority and 8.5 per cent. under a Conservative authority.
I was staggered that the hon. Gentleman chose to introduce Liverpool into the equation. Of all the councils that he could have chosen, he should not have chosen to attack Liverpool, where, in the two years since the Liberal Democrats took over, the council tax rise was 0 per cent. and 0 per cent. I should have thought that he would welcome that.

Mr. Waterson: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that all the experts and pundits agree that the fairest comparison is the band D council tax. If he does, he must also accept that on average it is much more expensive to live under a Liberal Democrat or Labour-run council than under a Conservative council.

Mr. Foster: I said that when the hon. Gentleman wanted to attack authorities, on some occasions, he chose to use percentages and, on others, council tax band D. I therefore chose one of those methods at random. I am sorry if he does not like the figures, but they are correct.
Another important issue relates to the point made by hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who referred to the global settlement for local government. The amount of money available is part of the problem, but the strings attached to the sum allocated is the second part of the problem. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that there has been a significant increase in the sums provided by special and specific grants—the strings that central Government attach to local government—but I slightly dispute the figure that he gave. I understand that the increase from the current year to next year is more


than 20 per cent. I hope that he will agree that the proportion of local government money that came from specific grants, with strings attached, was 4 per cent. in 1997, but that it will increase under a Labour Government to about 10 per cent. next year. In some areas, the increase is considerably more than that.
Specific grants for education amounted to £250 million in 1997, but next year, under a Labour Government, £2.6 billion will be constrained in that way—a tenfold increase. The problem is worse than that, because if a local authority reaches out and takes some of that money, with all the strings attached, it must also find matching funds. Therefore, about £3.3 billion is effectively tied up in specific grants. All evidence clearly shows that the Government talk about reinvigorating local government, but simply cannot let it go. Rather like old, imperial Britain, they are trying to run a huge empire from the centre. They have decentralised tax raising without decentralising the power to match.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough said, no progress is being made in distributing the money more fairly. I shall choose some examples at random. Why is a secondary school pupil in Westminster worth £4,271, when a child in Warminster is worth only £3,077? Mr. David Laws of Yeovil has advised me that a child in Somerset is worth more than £200 less than the national average. Many hon. Members acknowledge that there are real problems in urban areas, but there are real problems in rural areas, too. We have not yet devised an area cost adjustment, or another funding distribution mechanism, that truly takes account of real need, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Kidney: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) could not say that, as a matter of policy, the current area cost adjustment should be reformed. Will the hon. Gentleman at least say that the Liberal Democrats believe that it should?

Mr. Foster: I say absolutely categorically that the area cost adjustment should be reformed. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that we need a simple, fair funding system that takes account of local need.
A redistribution mechanism is necessary, but other proposals would make life much easier. For example, why cannot local councils raise a far greater percentage of the money that they spend, with a corresponding reduction in national income tax, so that the local piper can call the local tune? Why has the current, unfair council tax been continued? Elderly people, for example, live in much larger houses, which are more expensive, yet their income is much lower. Why do not we adopt a much fairer system of local income tax? As other hon. Members have said, why is local government expenditure capped in any way? Why must we have this so-called sophisticated system under which the nearly poor pay for the really poor?
I welcome the introduction of floors because it makes sense to ensure that the councils that will lose money are given time to prepare, but why do ceilings need to be introduced? Surely that means that councils with real and immediate needs will not be provided with the support that they require.
The net effect is that, after four years of a Labour Government, Whitehall's tanks are still on our town hall lawns. The tanks may have changed colour, but they are still as heavy and powerful as ever. Local people want to feel more, not less, in control of the issues that are important to them. If all the decisions that count are taken hundreds of miles away, is it any wonder that people lose interest in the political process?

Mr. Jim Cunningham: The time allocated to this motion is pretty short to say the least, which is a shame because this was developing into an interesting debate. Both sides of the House have their positions to defend; nevertheless, my hon. Friends have not been afraid to say where we would like to see improvements and, for that reason alone, this has been a useful exercise.
The Opposition say that the Government have somehow used the area cost adjustment for political purposes, but I seem to remember from my time in local government that we could have argued the same way when they were in government. I met various Ministers to discuss the issue. In fact, I used to deal with someone who now sits on the Opposition Benches.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) that the SSA issue must be addressed. I am glad that the Minister says that she is doing so, but I urge a little caution. Anyone who knows anything about the formula—no one knows everything about it because it confuses everyone—says that any change in the SSA must be dealt with carefully. We must be careful, and people both inside and outside local government have debated that often.
I sometimes think that it is dangerous to come from a local government background, certainly when debating the issue in the House, but I am struck by the fact that, even with the best of intentions, those in local government, especially the employees, feel constantly under attack. More should be done to improve the morale of local government employees. A bit of dignity should be reintroduced, because they have all been at the butt of competitive tendering by successive Governments. We have all seen the experiments of the past 20 years, and it is about time that they were called to a halt.
It is time to build up public confidence in our local services because, in one way or another, most of the major political parties are committed to public services. Whether we are talking about teachers' bargaining rights or ordinary local government workers' concerns about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and being transferred into the private sector, we must rejuvenate public confidence in local services. Those are some of the issues that concern me.
Having said that, I welcome the Government's £8 billion increase in local government expenditure, but there could still be a £3.5 billion shortfall. The Government cannot put such matters right overnight, and we must bear in mind that there are still major problems. For example, during the past two or three years, the social services department in Coventry has found itself with a shortfall of £4 million or £5 million. The projected shortfall is £5 million and £6 million for the next year or two.
There is a trend to move social services away from local government control. We must give social services, especially the personal service aspects, more serious


consideration than we have given them in the past. We must consider the impact on services for various age groups, including those for children and elderly people, and the fact that it is difficult to recruit social workers and people to provide other services, such as home care for the elderly.
I return to a point that I made earlier. We must stop knocking local government and start supporting the people who work to deliver the services. I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the problems in Coventry, which have created two or three crises in the past two or three years in the delivery of social services. The increase in the assistance that Coventry has received for social services is about 2.6 per cent. below the national average. I readily acknowledge that the Government have provided assistance, but we must deal with such problems.
I welcome the £6 billion for capital investment. That will help to some extent. Although I know that things cannot happen overnight, I would like to see more done.
I also welcome the £52 million that will be spent on teachers' salaries to aid recruitment. As a trade unionist, I have always thought that teachers should have the same negotiating rights as everybody else. I know that the review body is due to report shortly, but I hope that it will consider not only salaries, but negotiating rights and the way in which performance-related pay is working in practice and affecting teachers' morale.
Time is short, but I want to say in concluding that we must do more about training in local government and about capital investment for data changes and computer equipment. We should want everyone to participate in service delivery. I would have liked to mention a range of other issues, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. David Curry: This has been the year of the sticking plaster. The fact that the Government have had to put so much sticking plaster on to their original settlement should not disguise the real thrust of the settlement. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was right: there has been a remorseless advance in direct grants at the expense of unhypothecated expenditure.
The Government proclaim that they like local government and local government freedoms. They say that they are giving more liberty to local government, but every year the amount of money that is directly controlled by the Government increases as a proportion of the settlement. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has increased by £2.6 billion for education alone this year, so the Government's proclamations of independence for local government are entirely hypocritical.
Labour Members have been wailing about the area cost adjustment, but when the Minister and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) were in opposition four or five years ago they told us how easy it would be to sort out the area cost adjustment. They said that it was a matter of lack of will on the then Government's part and that anyone who applied a couple of iotas of intelligence to the matter would soon sort it out. After four years of a Labour Government, the solution has not advanced by a single comma. We have had a series of fertile little ruses—a sort of "petite astuce"—to make the settlement work.
Of course, the settlement does not work, which is why we have had improvisations. No one would object to additional money for neighbourhood renewal, except for the fact that that money has not had to be bid for; it is allocated at the Minister's pleasure. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is curious to see the local authorities to which it has been allocated.
No one would object to additional money to meet the teachers' pay settlement. In the inner cities and London in particular, retaining teachers is a gargantuan problem. If the pay increase is to be 3.5 per cent. or thereabouts, it will go only a tiny way to helping with that problem. In addition, no one objects to helping local authorities to deal with asylum seekers.
Another bit of sticking plaster is the attempt to deal with the problems of the Environment Agency and the cost of flooding. The Government need to do a little more, and it is not just a question of money. They have failed to address the issue correctly in three respects. First, the Bellwin scheme comes in only when spending is 0.2 per cent. of the whole of an authority's budget. It is a curiously perverse phenomenon that the mass of teachers' salaries governs how much an authority would receive from the Bellwin scheme. Secondly, no help has been given to make good the damage to roads and bridges.
Thirdly, the increase in the Environment Agency levy is accounted for not in the year in which the increase bites, but subsequently. Thus there is a cash-flow hit on local authorities that can only come out of the council tax or services. That is particularly true of my authority of North Yorkshire. Of course, we are pleased with the additional money, which has meant that the demands on the council tax will be rather less than they would otherwise have been, but the announcement was about meeting historical costs, and the Government have to do that in any case. The sum is £500,000 short of the cost, and it is not all new money. The Government are recycling £2 million of the £51 million, and there is no provision for future investment.
The commitment to increase the rate of grant support for new capital works to 65 per cent. is welcome. However, the need to carry out enhanced maintenance as a result of the floods and to fast track capital schemes in areas that have been flooded not once but twice means that more cash is needed. The Government must pay attention to that problem and I draw their attention to the report published today by the Select Committee on Agriculture, which deals with it.
In the little remaining time that I have left, I wish to focus on the crisis facing social services departments. The Government have fast tracked and tried to passport money into education departments over a number of years. That is part of the business of untying the non-hypothecation of local government funding and making sure that Ministers control the money. However, the ragbag at the end of that process has been personal social services departments that have been asked to co-operate with health authorities and which have faced new demands from the housing authorities. It is no surprise that the members of personal social services departments are deeply demoralised.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Local Government Association has made calculations about the national scene, but the position in North Yorkshire is even worse. In North Yorkshire, a third of the elderly people who go into care have put themselves into care.


They become a charge on the local authority when they run out of money, and no account is taken of that charge in local government funding. That is entirely unfair, and we know about the consequences that it has for bed blocking.
In my local authority, there is an overspend of £300,000 on children's services, and the costs of placements in foster care and secure accommodation are 29 per cent. over the SSA. The overspend on the placements of adults and older people in residential and nursing home care is £1.3 million. There is a £1.6 million overspend and a funding gap of £3.5 million in personal social services. That is not because the local authority is inefficient—the inspectorate said that it was rather good at delivering social services—but because the Government do not take account of demography and the increasing propensity for some social workers to err on the side of caution for reasons that we all understand in the face of the habitual barrage of criticism that they receive.
Therefore, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of children who must be looked after. We have lost £600,000 in the children's SSA to fund the leaving care grant. As I said, 30 per cent. of older people who are newly referred for assessment have placed themselves in homes and reached the capital limit. That limit will rise, which will place an additional burden on local authorities.
The health service is demanding speedy discharge, because the number of blocked beds obviously causes concern. However, a couple of weeks ago, 108 older people were waiting for placements because of the phenomenon to which I have referred.
On the costs of rural care, a community councils network study, which was undertaken this year, considered the cost of delivering domiciliary care and suggested that North Yorkshire could justify an additional 2.8 per cent. of funding—or £600,000—for these services.
The social services department is under strain; there is no point pretending that it is not. Of course, the settlement is higher than previous settlements and money is being passported to education, but when that happens the focus inevitably shifts. For the same reasons that demographic changes make life difficult for the health service, they are also making it more difficult for personal social services departments. The Government rightly wish to see the two integrate much more effectively, but the pieces of sticking plaster are tinkerings with the system. They do not deal with the fundamental distribution problems and the Government have backed off from giving councils more freedom. Despite all the rhetoric, the apron strings are being tied tighter and tighter.
The Government claimed that they would provide more freedom, but the settlement is more interventionist. They said that the settlement would be simpler, but it is more complex. They said that the settlement would be fairer, but, as result of the famous topping and tailing, it is more arbitrary. We have a veneer of generosity, and the reality of prescription and inadequacy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We have had an interesting debate and some worthwhile contributions have been

made, but our discussion has been all too short because of the antics of some Opposition Members. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) that Opposition Back Benchers have done little more than sabotage this debate. [Interruption.] I beg the Liberal Democrats' pardon; I am speaking only about Conservative Members.
However, despite the Opposition's entirely predictable rhetoric, hon. Members clearly recognise that this year's settlement continues the sustained and substantial investment in local government services that the Government have provided during the past three years, notwithstanding the pressures. That investment is but one strand of the wider and more fundamental reform of local government. That reform will put local government back where it should be. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) in that respect.
We have a clear programme of reform for local government. We want it to plan for community well-being in the broadest sense, consult local people and work out the best way of providing services at a price that they are willing to pay. As our performance during the past few years demonstrates, we accept that local government needs a stable platform of adequate funding to achieve those aims. It must be able to rely on sustained real growth in funding so that it can plan for some years ahead.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said, this year's settlement is the best since the introduction of council tax. Total support from Government grant and business rates will constitute more than £44 billion. That is an increase of £3 billion, or 7.2 per cent., which comes on top of the substantial increases that have been made every year since we formulated the budget. In those four years, Government grant to local government has risen by 14 per cent. in real terms. That investment contrasts starkly with the 7 per cent. real-terms cut made by the Tories in the four years before the last election.
I have been concentrating on the general grant because the House is considering the overall settlement, but I should point out that it comes in addition to substantial ring-fenced grant increases this year. There has been a total increase of 34 per cent., with a 48 per cent. increase in the ring-fenced grant for education.
During the consultation period, we listened carefully to what local authorities, their associations and hon. Members from all parties told us about the difficulties faced by local government. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions mentioned, we took the view that there were four problem areas. It is curious that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) called that response to pressures "sticking plaster". That says a lot about the Tories' view on what consultation should be about. Indeed, when they were in government, they never listened or did anything in response to what people told them about their experiences. We are not like that. On top of providing a good settlement, we think that it is right to respond to the four problem areas.
It will be up to local authorities to finalise their budget plans. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon did not seem to understand that point. Whatever protestations Opposition Members make, we expect that this year's very good settlement will enable council tax increases as


a whole to continue on the downward trend that we have established. The majority of local authorities will be able to set a lower council tax increase this year than they did last year.
Let me put the increase in context. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon described a litany of problems, but North Yorkshire has been given a 4.8 increase in the general grant and a 26.2 per cent. increase in the specific grant. That constitutes a total increase in Government funding of 6.5 per cent., plus £100,000 from the extra £52 million education grant. North Yorkshire county council has received a minimum increase of £19 million this year.
Obviously, any big organisation must make decisions on priorities and on the pressures to which it wants to respond, but let us make no mistake: this Government are continuing to give local government the best settlements that it has ever received, certainly in my memory. Local government needs the ability to manage its budgets.

Mr. Curry: Does the Under-Secretary accept that, three years ago, North Yorkshire lost £3 million because the social services formula was changed? That was an enormous hit against a county with a rising demographic trend. More elderly people needed care and more children were being taken into care—issues on which the Government claim to want delivery.

Ms Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman's presentation of the circumstances that existed three years ago is completely erroneous. Investment in local authorities was increased at that time. That included North Yorkshire, where total Government investment increased.

Mr. Curry: There was a cut.

Ms Hughes: It was not a cut. Many councils' aspirations on total income are not met, in terms both of Government contributions and their own charges.

Mr. Curry: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Ms Hughes: No, I shall not give way again.
Every year, the Opposition have predicted that local authorities would act irresponsibly and introduce huge average council tax rises. Each year since this Government have been in control, councils have proved Opposition Members wrong. The increase in average council tax has fallen as a result of our additional investment.
I was surprised at the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is usually sensible, for falling into the trap on council tax. He should know that council tax rises are the result not of Government funding, but of councils' overall spending decisions, for which they will be accountable to their electorates. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about political interference, I can say nothing more than that his arguments were breathtakingly shameless and that we shall take no lessons from Opposition Members on local government matters.
Under the previous Government, local councils were battered and bruised and their money and powers were systematically removed. It is this Government who have

provided stable and substantial funding to all councils. This year's settlement continues our commitment to invest.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001–02 (HC 158), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Social Security, the Ayes were 382, the Noes were 138, so the motion was agreed to.

[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Local Government Finance (England)

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) Special Grant Report (No. 72) (HC 159), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
To complete the picture of local government funding, we need to tackle two other issues, in addition to those covered by the previous motion. These are any substantial continuing effect on a local authority's grant entitlement arising from past changes in the method of calculating the grant distribution formula; and the arrangements to provide a measure of funding stability for other authorities, such as shire districts, not covered by the floor and ceiling arrangements.
The special grant report covers three special grants: standard spending assessment reduction grant—SSA review; SSA reduction grant—police funding review; and central support protection grant.
The SSA reduction grants deal with past changes in methodology. As there have been no methodology changes to SSAs or to the police grant formula since 1999–2000, other than some minor changes to reflect the introduction of the Greater London Authority and the transfer of nursery grant funding into SSAs, the number of authorities receiving these grants has been diminishing over the past few years. This year, only one authority remains protected by these grants—the City of London. The total cost of the grants has consequently reduced from some £16 million in 2000–01 to less than £2 million this year.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister. She said that there had been no substantial changes in SSA over the past year. Can she tell us whether there have been substantial changes over the past three years?

Ms Armstrong: I said that there had been no changes since 1999–2000. [Interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have maintained SSA methodology over a three-year period. I read to him the areas in which we have changed methodology over the past three years.
On a like-for-like basis, the grant guarantees that no shire district authority—no relevant authority—will receive a reduced general grant from central Government.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Armstrong: The number of relevant authorities receiving the grant this year has again declined as a result of the more generous funding levels for shire district councils.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Armstrong: Ten shire districts will receive central support protection grant this year.

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Armstrong: The cost of this grant for relevant authorities—

Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Armstrong: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am seeking to uphold your injunction to keep my introduction brief. However, I give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. She just said—if she looks back at her notes, she will be able to read it again—that there would be no reduction for shire districts on a like-for-like basis. Taking into account the additional burden placed, for example, on East Dorset district council, which features in the report, does she agree that a new burden has been placed on East Dorset as it now has to pay for concessionary fares, so there is not a like-for-like basis for comparing this year and the coming year?

Ms Armstrong: We are dealing with SSAs. There is no substantial change in SSAs this year. However, additional funding has been put into the settlement, in order to deal with the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. We are comparing SSAs on a like-for-like basis.
There are only 10 shire districts that will receive central support protection grant this year. They are listed in the report. The cost of this grant for relevant authorities has consequently fallen from more than £4 million in 2000–01 to £1.4 million this year. The reductions are reflected in the overall grant settlements that we discussed in the previous debate.
The report completes the Government's allocation of general grant to local authorities for the year 2001–02. It will help to provide stability of funding so that the authorities affected can plan ahead for better service delivery. It is therefore an important part of our commitment to public services. I commend the special grant report to the House.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: As the Minister said, we are discussing special grant report No. 72, which covers SSA reduction grant, SSA police grant and the central support protection grant.
On one view, the report is narrow and technical. It deals with transitional grants for the authorities concerned. Essentially, it deals with anomalies that may affect certain local authorities.
Part of the report deals with the City of London. As I understand the position—the Minister is welcome to correct me if I have it wrong, as I am sure she would be the first to agree that, for anyone without a degree in mathematics, it is difficult to follow some of the formulae—the City of London is sensitive to demographic changes, and so may require extra grant attention at this time in the cycle.
The main issue, as far as I can see from the report, involves certain shire districts which are not eligible through the relevant mechanism for the new floor arrangement. We debated the matter earlier this evening, but the report raises general as well as specific issues.
As I said, the report is limited to specific authorities and the anomalies that apply to them. They are set out in detail. The report highlights all the distorting effects of the new floors and ceilings that the Government have introduced. It is strange that we are debating the effects on the authorities of floors and ceilings when the Government claim that there is a freeze on standard spending assessment methodology and that they are still considering the thousands of responses to the Green Paper on local government finance. It is odd that the Government are embarking on piecemeal reform of local government finance and a sticking-plaster approach—as

my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) described it in the previous debate—when they are in the process of thinking the unthinkable about local government finance and future mechanisms.
Comments from Liberal Democrat Members, Conservative Members and Labour Back-Bench Members in the previous debate made it painfully apparent that there is much dissatisfaction with the operation of existing mechanisms. Some local authorities are on the wrong side and others on the right side of the area cost adjustment fence. No matter how the mechanism is supposed to operate, some councils always seem to be bottom of their given league table. I do not expect the Chamber to fill up with hon. Members whose local councils are more than happy with their allocations, but plenty turn up for the opposite reason, doubtless after being lobbied by their constituents.
It is odd that the changes are to happen this year of all years, when there is supposed to be a freeze and what the Minister insists on describing as stability and predictability—as if those two things can be intrinsically good when the basis for calculating the initial figure is unfair in relation to some local authorities. There will be a clear change in the operation of the formula for some councils. The Government argue that, without some change, the existing formula would result in, to paraphrase the Minister, an unacceptably wide range of outcomes next year. Some authorities, especially in the south-east and London, would receive larger increases because of population movements and higher living costs. Hence the Government have devised a system of floors and ceilings on grant increases for authorities with responsibilities for education and social services.
The minimum floor increase for an individual authority will be 3.2 per cent., and the maximum ceiling will be 6.5 per cent., as the Minister said earlier. The debate is about authorities other than the City of London precisely because they do not provide education or social services. Left to themselves, they would not benefit—if that is the right word—from the new ceilings and floors. In a nutshell, that is the theme of the report.
However, neither the report nor the Minister explained why the Government believe that the system should be introduced now. As hon. Members know from the previous debate, we have three basic objections to the introduction of ceilings and floors at this stage. First, they distort a system that is already complex. A constant theme of such debates is the difficulty of understanding the formulae. It is no good Ministers complaining about the complexity of the system and the difficulty of explaining it to the taxpaying public—I presume that that is why they are considering other methods of calculating the amounts that local councils should spend—while simultaneously introducing an extra distortion to the system.
Secondly, the Government were presented with statistics, especially the new earnings data, for many authorities in the south-east and London, which suggested a substantial increase in the area cost adjustment. That is why they face a difficulty this year. Whatever the arguments for or against that mechanism, whether it is good or bad—

Mr. David Drew: Bad.

Mr. Waterson: I hear cries of "bad", and I appreciate that we are holding a genuine cross-party debate. Opinions depend on the area that one represents. In East Sussex, we believe that the area cost adjustment is good.

Mr. David Kidney: Now that the hon. Gentleman has had a little more time to think about it, will he outline Conservative party policy on the future of the area cost adjustment? He appears to like it. What is his party's view?

Mr. Waterson: In East Sussex, we like the area cost adjustment, because we happen to benefit from it. I understand why the hon. Gentleman takes the opposite view.
I repeat that we will wait and see the sort of mess in local government finance that we inherit after the general election before we make up our minds. The hon. Member for Stafford and I agree that once a mechanism such as the area cost adjustment is in place, people become dependent on it. It is difficult to wean people off such measures, and they become part of the system.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend made a pertinent remark about the complexity of the formulae. Does he agree that it would be revealing if Ministers were obliged to go into an examination room to answer questions of which they had no advance knowledge, about the function and implementation of section 88B(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, with no guidance from their officials, and declare the results to the public?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point if I only knew what it was. He reminds us clearly and eloquently of the sheer complexity of the formulae. I am sure that we jobbing politicians all rightly rely on officials when we become Ministers. Many Conservative Members are looking forward to that experience in two or three months. However, we will rely more on officials for guidance on local government finance than for any other subject.
At least Conservative Ministers tried; they saw a constant stream of delegations about local government finance. I have taken delegations from Eastbourne and I am sure that other hon. Members from all parties have done that for their local councils. The Labour Government are much less willing to receive delegations from councils. I do not claim that our Ministers always gave councils the answers that they wanted to hear, but at least they were prepared to listen and to take account of people's comments.
I was making a point about reflecting the real costs to councils. If costs have genuinely increased in a specific local authority area, they should be reflected in the area cost adjustment, as long as that system remains.
As the hon. Member for Stafford pointed out in slightly unguarded but acutely observed correspondence, most local authorities will lose out. A few will benefit from the floors while 12 will suffer from the ceilings. I suspect that the Government are simply trying out a new weapon. However, the mass of local authorities in the middle will continue to lose out because of the mechanism. I challenge Ministers to challenge that statement. We will watch future developments with great interest.

Mr. Kidney: For the hon. Gentleman's information, as a result of the Government's announcement about changes

since the provisional settlement was announced to the House, Staffordshire will not lose out because of the floor provisions. The extra money that it now receives takes it back past the amount that it gave up under the floor provision. We are not losing out in Staffordshire.

Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to hear it. No doubt the Government are hoping that that will save the hon. Gentleman's seat and others in the area, although I somehow doubt that it will be enough.
I shall finish on our general worries about the floors and ceilings concept, particularly the fact that it is being introduced at this stage, when we are meant to be having a freeze on any such changes. The Local Government Association Conservative group, which is well on its way to being the dominant group in the Local Government Association, states:
The LGA Conservative Group is strongly opposed to the proposal to introduce grant ceilings. There seems little point in having an elaborate system of SSAs, dependent on the collection of large quantities of data, if that data is subsequently ignored because it does not suit the Government.
That is the truth behind all this. We find the proposals in the document as objectionable, in many ways, as those in the earlier document because they bring in the idea of floors and ceilings. Having said that, although we voted against the earlier report, it is not my intention—subject to how the debate develops—to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on the Special Grant Report No. 72.

Mr. Eric Insley: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution on the report.
I want to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about floors and ceilings. I was surprised, when reading the report, to find that my local authority did not come within the SSA reduction grant, in view of the 1991 census information. I recall speaking in previous debates on this issue, and drawing attention to the fact that, even with the changes that had taken place, we lost revenue support grant in the same way that we have under this settlement. In this case, we have lost revenue support grant through data losses.
The report relates mainly to ceilings and floors. My local authority, Barnsley, is at the floor level of settlements throughout the country. It received a 3.2 per cent. increase in revenue support grant, which is at the lower end of the scale. I appreciate that other amounts of money have been received in relation to the neighbourhood renewal fund and to education. Unfortunately, those amounts of money are not adequate to address the problems that we face as a result of the low settlement.
.
There are restrictions on how the neighbourhood renewal fund money can be used. It cannot simply be transferred across into other sectors, in which my local authority is currently struggling to meet its responsibilities. In fact, Barnsley remains 30th out of the 36 metropolitan authorities in terms of its level of RSG funding. The data changes, and the area cost adjustment factors, have resulted in a loss of some £2.2 million, and the ceilings and floors have resulted in a further loss of some £100,000.
As for the additional moneys from the Department for Education and Employment, Barnsley received £180,000 of the total, while neighbouring Doncaster received about


£880,000. That equates to about 79p a head for Barnsley, compared to an average of £2.63 a head across all the metropolitan authorities. Once again, we appear to have come off badly regarding all the extra funding that the Government have provided.
The effect on Barnsley's budget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) pointed out, is that it will lose £11 million over the next two years. That is nothing new for our local authority. because it has faced many cuts since the SSA methodology was introduced in 1990. It was capped in 1990, together with 19 other authorities, one third of which were in coal-mining areas. The SSA methodology simply does not address the difficulties of coal-mining villages, because they are always equated with rather nice villages with duck ponds and village greens, which are doing quite well. We tend to lose out as a result.
There will undoubtedly be redundancies in Barnsley as a result of the settlement. The local authority has already issued compulsory redundancy notices to the employment department. That will obviously cause some difficulty, in particular because the local authority does not have the money to fund the redundancies that are being imposed on it as a consequence of the local government settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough asked whether the Government would consider a supplementary credit approval for £1.8 million, to cover the difficulties that the local authority will encounter in funding those redundancies and employment cuts. My hon. Friend mentioned that the job losses could be equivalent to about 225 full-time posts. The local authority has issued an HR1 notice that calls for 450 redundancies. That is a substantial number of job losses.
The methodology used for the ceilings and floors is rather flawed, as was mentioned earlier. The proposals rely on the scheme being self-financing, which has the perverse effect of penalising those authorities that have already lost resources through data changes. Authorities such as mine have, therefore, lost twice: once through the data changes, and again through the ceilings and floors mechanism.

Ms Armstrong: There are one or two misapprehensions about this matter. My hon. Friend's local authority will contribute to the special grants that we are debating. Those special grants are top-sliced from the settlement, and he does not, therefore, know how much his authority will contribute to them. Had that money not been top-sliced, it would have been distributed through the general grant. By opting for that system, we have simply made more open the contribution from each authority. However, instead of that contribution coming from the authority's base grant, according to the scaling factor, and the floors and ceilings, the contribution is only part of the increase that it is receiving. Barnsley is, therefore, contributing less, because we have calculated the amount using floors and ceilings, than it would have done if we had done this by top-slicing, through a special grant.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but we are still contributing £100,000 in respect of ceilings

and floors. That is simply a case of the poor funding the poorer, which has happened with previous RSG settlements.
The "other services" block, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough mentioned, is the one that seems to have been neglected. Although we passport money for social services and education and although I agree with education being a priority, "other services" funding seems to have been slightly neglected even though our local populace clearly told the local authority through the community plan that they want issues such as the environment, street cleaning and road repair, which the block covers, to be addressed. Even education and employment did not feature as a priority in the community plan survey, but factors relating to the "other services" block did.
I should like to mention housing revenue accounts and stock transfer, but time does not permit. However, such issues are having an impact on our local authority's problems in respect of the funding that it needs and best value, and a demonstration about that took place in the town only a few days ago. Although that money will not come out of this settlement, we ought to target local government funding at the areas that particularly need it.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I have been trying to work out the simultaneous equation that leads to what Z means in Annex B, before Hansard records hon. Members as zzzzz!

Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend informs the House that he has been trying to work that out, but can he explain why, when C plus D minus A over T is not greater or equal to two times S, the grant is T into Z minus S whereas if the grant of C plus D minus A over T is greater than two times S, the grant is half TZ? Why should there be a difference?

Mr. Sanders: When I sum up, I shall try my best to explain precisely why that is. The equation is an example of, "Whatever you put in, you can get out whatever you like so long as you confuse everybody in the process as to how you got there." The Minister said that this is the best settlement ever.

Ms Armstrong: Since the council tax was introduced.

Mr. Sanders: Every year since the council tax was introduced, the Minister has been able to say, "This is the best settlement." Every year, the money going into local government increases, so there is no lie there. The problem is that the extra money does not always meet the costs incurred on the ground by different local authorities. That is why we have formulae and why we have floors and ceilings. However, the floors and ceilings that we have been debating represent an admission that the data on which the standard spending assessment are based are out of date and, for some authorities, almost meaningless.
In effect, whatever controls the Treasury determines decide who wins and who loses in each year's settlement. The view of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches is that radical reform is necessary. The legitimacy of local decision making to meet community needs should not rest on the political colour of the Government in control at


Westminster, but that is what has happened to local government over the past few decades. Irrespective of who was in power, the Government were able to tweak the simultaneous equations to support those authorities that they wanted to support at the expense of those that they perhaps did not want to support.
It is argued that councils should be free to raise their own taxes and that any distribution grant to assist those areas that cannot raise as much money locally as others should be determined by local councils acting collectively. Before hon. Members jump up and say, "What would the Lib Dems do?", I should point out that we consider the legitimacy of local government to come from the roots—from communities themselves. Local government in this country is like a dog kept on a tight leash. The minor reforms made by the Government, which we welcome, only lengthened the lead while continuing to keep local government on a tight choke. However, if local government is the dog, the SSA system and the damping arrangements are the dog's breakfast.
Those authorities that missed out in the past continue to miss out. Historically, low-spending authorities face the double-edged dilemma of having to cut services while increasing council tax as the Government tell them that they have never had it so good. More money is given to local government year after year, but something does not add up. Surely if the grant regime was fair and if central Government believed in local government, council tax would not have to rise at three times the rate of inflation.
The truth is contained in the pre-Budget book, under the heading relating to central Government receipts. Apparently, in the next financial year what Government coffers receive from council tax will rise by 6.9 per cent. That is remarkably close to what the average council tax rise will be. By shifting the tax burden to the council tax payer the Chancellor has been able to get a pat on the back, while councillors have got it in the neck.
Central Government seem to mistrust local government. I do not for a moment include this or other Ministers in that; it is, I think, the Treasury that mistrusts local government, because it controls how much local government can spend, borrow and even, in some cases, charge for a given service. If councils want or need additional funds, they must apply for grants or credit approvals, with no guarantee of success. The shift towards money being available through competition is an incredible waste of officers' time and of local government resources, given that not all councils are able to succeed. A widespread view is that some authorities gain grants not wholly on the basis of need, but on the basis of their officers' ability to put in good applications. It seems that the skills of officers are more important than the genuine needs of some authorities.
I want to refer briefly to my council, Torbay unitary authority. A preliminary announcement by the council—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman confine his remarks about his local authority to the matter under debate?

Mr. Sanders: The impact of the standard spending assessment is factor A in the simultaneous equation. It means that my authority faces cuts of 9 per cent., and a 7 per cent. council tax rise.
The crux of the matter is this. My local authority, which is Conservative-controlled, says "We are £30 million short of what we believe we need to spend, and what the

SSA says we need to spend." I happen to think that that is probably the officers' estimate of what the council would like to spend, but I have no doubt that there is a difference between what Government say it needs to spend and what it has available to spend. That is having an impact on council tax rises, and on cuts in services.
Let me give one example of a service area to which that applies. Children's services spending is part of the SSA formula. Since 1998, the SSA for children's services in my unitary authority has risen by 15.7 per cent. Over the same period, spending on this service has been forced to rise by more than 50 per cent.—not because the council has chosen to increase spending, but because agencies outwith the council are referring clients to the council, and the council has no control over that.
The grant system takes a long time to catch up with the amount that is having to be spent, if indeed it ever does catch up. I strongly suggest that Ministers should be sympathetic to councils whose costs are increased, which enable through no fault of their own, in areas as important as children's services and social services enabling people to be cared for under local authority jurisdiction.
Local Government finance is too complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made that point very well, and I shall write to him later with the answer to his mathematical question. The system is not transparent, and in the case of some services in some authorities it is unfair. It seems that which authorities find it unfair depends on the colour of central Government.
The tax burden has been shifted from central Government to the council tax payer, and radical reform introducing a power of general competence, including fiscal competence, is long overdue. It is time that local government was set free.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Whoever split the debates has done the House a grave disservice. The contributions in the first debate and, to a certain extent, in this one need to be heard. The debate needs to be had in the House. I will certainly be one of those calling for the House authorities to have a further debate on the whole subject.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) does not have a similarly friendly intervention for me on the formula because I could not answer it. That is the root of the problem. I realise that we are talking about special grants. I recognise the increase in the level of settlement this year generally, in contrast with earlier years: a £3 billion, or 7.2 per cent., increase in total Government grant and a 4.9 per cent. increase in the general grant. We should not pursue the debate without recognising that positive.
I recognise, too, the extreme difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and her colleagues in the Department face in trying to satisfy every council, let alone every hon. Member. She surely has one of the most difficult jobs in government. However, I am dissatisfied with the overall settlement, including the special grant arrangements. The roots of that dissatisfaction lie in the settlement's effects on my borough, the London borough of Havering, and in the method by which central Government fund local government.
I should add that, prior to the 1997 general election, my local authority suffered a 1.8 per cent. decrease in its settlement in 1994–95, followed by a 1.2 per cent. increase in 1995–96 and a 0.7 per cent. increase in 1996–97. That contrasts with the four years of the present Government, when there have been increases of 4.1. 4.5, 4.2 and 6.4 per cent. this year. The average increase in the four years before 1997 was 1.5 per cent. The average increase in the past four years has been 4.8 per cent.—a significant increase.
None the less, there is an element of tinkering with the system. Councils that benefit from that tinkering have initial comfort for a number of years, but it does not deal with the fundamental flaws, as my right hon. Friend said in the earlier debate. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). To avoid the complexities of the special grant and the system generally, what is needed is a fundamental review. I was happy to make a contribution to the Green Paper. I will be interesting to read the contributions of hon. Members and others when the results of the Green Paper consultation are published.
The problem is that the settlement does not recognise historical factors, including the difficulties following the post-poll tax debacle in the early 1990s. That is when the fundamental problems that exist arose in my local authority. We can plot them from that debacle.
The settlement does not recognise adequately the area cost adjustment, or the area cost adjustment does not adequately recognise needs, whichever way one looks at it. I know that there have been a number of reviews. The Elliot report a few years back specifically helped outer London boroughs. My local authority made representations to the previous and present Governments on that point.
The current settlement does not recognise adequately the increasing demands that local government has to deal with. That is a fair point, which we often debate. We often put obligations on local authorities, but we do not properly fund them. There needs to be a review of that.
The settlement does not particularly well assess the needs of areas, certainly not of my own area. My area's ageing population, for example, is not reflected in the settlement. As an area's age balance changes, demands on social services change. A proper needs-based system should take account of that and fund the demands, but that is not happening. If that does not happen over the years, local authority finances become diminished. The settlement—in the special grant and elsewhere—also does not necessarily recognise high wage costs.
All those factors have led to the likelihood that, this year, my local authority will increase council tax by 11.5 per cent. That was the figure predicted a couple of weeks ago, but it may be decreased on the basis of this final settlement and the decisions of the precepting authorities, primarily the Greater London Authority. Nevertheless, we anticipate a council tax increase that is well above inflation, of between 9 and 11.5 per cent.
As council taxes are being increased, services will be cut. I should say that the local authority has been under that financial strain for about eight to nine years. Eight or nine years ago, however, there was some fat in the system

that enabled the council to cope. The local authority has made efficiency gains in service delivery in the intervening period. However, if councils have to make cuts and increase council tax year after year, eventually it becomes very difficult to deliver the improved public services which we all want. One can already see diminution in marginal services such as road resurfacing.
The borough's reserves are now well below those recommended by the Audit Commission. Consequently, it is unable to make adjustments to cope with difficulties in a particularly bad year. The consequence of that is that our constituents are affected by service cuts and a reduction in their overall quality of life.
I appreciate that this is a narrow debate on the special grant report. I believe, however, that we urgently need a review of the overall system, and I hope that the Government will begin one as quickly as possible.

Mr. Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. However, even without a fundamental review—which would be very difficult to conduct because of the factors that he mentioned, such as an ageing population and the fact that different age groups have different levels of need—does he not accept that floors and ceilings are a good way of addressing the needs issue? This year, even councils that were subject to ceilings still received a real-terms increase. Is not that approach also the best way of dealing with the needs of those who have essentially been pulled up to the floor?

Mr. Darvill: I broadly accept that the floors did help. Had they not existed, we would be discussing far greater difficulties across the country. Therefore, to that extent, the system must be welcome. If there is not a fundamental review of the system in the next 12 months, we will undoubtedly be considering other devices and ways of tinkering with it, perhaps by increasing the floor, to ensure that greater difficulties do not arise.

Mr. Tim Loughton: By the very same logic that the hon. Gentleman has just used, is it not clear that the many authorities that have lost out because of the ceiling will be losing not only bonus money, but money that is essential to cover additional spending on social services, flooding, best value and everything else? As authorities will now not be receiving that money, money will have to come out of spending on other core services.

Mr. Darvill: The hon. Gentleman gave the example of flooding, but I understand that financial provision has been made for it. I cannot deal specifically with the point, but I have seen in the papers various figures on provision to deal with flooding. The hon. Gentleman is undeniably right, in the sense that those local authorities will have their ceilings reduced and will therefore have to adjust their services downwards.
However, the fundamental problem was created in the broad post-poll tax settlement, when the present complexity was created. Admittedly, it is this Government's job to do something about it. Until they do, the debate on these matters will continue, as it has this evening.
The underlying message that I want to give to Ministers is that, although the overall benefits enjoyed by councils must be recognised, there are councils around the country


that are suffering. The delivery of services in those areas is becoming increasingly difficult. I shall support the Government generally this evening, but I want to draw Ministers' attention to my concerns in this area.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) said that he did not think that adequate time had been allowed for the debate. I agree: I am surprised that the Minister has so little influence with the Government that she was unable to secure a whole-day debate on the matter.[Interruption.] I think it important to discuss the orders before us separately, but the Government were prepared to offer only three hours for debate on the subject of the revenue support grant for England.
When I was a local government Minister, the debate used to go on all day. Hon. Members would stand up and complain on behalf of their area, saying that they had been done down by the Government. It was traditional in those days for hon. Members worried about their area to vote against the Government, even when they were members of the Government party. I do not know whether that will happen tonight, but I suspect that the Government's agenda is to try to restrict the debate so that they are exposed to less criticism from their Back Benchers than they properly should be, given the injustice of the arrangements that now prevail.
There is a set amount of money to be distributed, and the Government's method of distribution is very unfair for some councils. I shall deal in my remarks with the case of East Dorset district council, which covers about half of the area of my constituency.

Mr. Darvill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in my contribution I contrasted the very low settlements received under the Government that he supported with the much higher settlements received under this Government?

Mr. Chope: I know that that is what the hon. Gentleman said. However, what I have to say about East Dorset will show that his proposition is not accurate in relation to particular councils. Moreover, I doubt its accuracy as a generality. The pre-Budget report produced by the Treasury shows that the Government expect the yield from council tax to increase by two to three times the rate of inflation this year. That is the same rate of increase as occurred last year and the year before that.
That means that the Government expect council tax payers to pay a higher contribution to the costs of local services than they did under a Conservative Government. That is now causing real hardship. In a written answer that I received yesterday, I was told that, in 1998–99, 6 per cent. of pensioner households were in what I would describe as council tax poverty—that is, they were paying more than 10 per cent. of their income in council tax.
Hon. Members of all parties have been concerned for many years about people in fuel poverty. They are people who spend more than 10 per cent. of their net income on fuel. I submit that it is horrendous for pensioners to have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on council tax. Those figures are increasing, but the Government have not been collecting the data for the past year—no doubt because having them revealed would be rather embarrassing. I know from my constituency, which has a

large number of pensioner households, that the burden of the council tax is becoming unbearable and that increasing numbers spend more than £1,000 a year on council tax.
Annex A of the report shows that East Dorset district council is identified in part III as a receiving authority area. It will receive £51,647 as a result of this report. I shall therefore not be voting against this report because the people of East Dorset are grateful for small mercies.
Underlying that figure is the fact that East Dorset district council will receive in Government grant this coming year no more than it has received in the current year, despite having to take on extra burdens and responsibilities imposed by the Government—indeed, by this House—through legislation. I refer in particular to concessionary fares, about which I have been in correspondence with the Minister on a number of occasions. When the Government announced that they would introduce a mandatory minimum standard for local authorities in relation to concessionary fare schemes, they said that they would put aside sufficient money to meet the additional costs. I have no reason to doubt that they did just that. However, they have not distributed that money in a fair and equitable way. Not a penny of that extra money has come to East Dorset district council, so other councils are receiving money over and above what is necessary to pay for the extra burden.
Only two district councils—East Dorset and Hart—receive no revenue support grant. The Minister and the Government know that. They know that if they use the RSG as the mechanism for distributing resources when they impose new burdens on local authorities, none of the extra resources will go to East Dorset or Hart. Obviously, I am more concerned tonight about East Dorset than I am about Hart, but the principle is fundamental. The Government are imposing new burdens; they make general propositions, saying that they will fund the costs of those extra burdens out of taxpayers' money and then expect some councils to meet the full costs themselves. In East Dorset, where about 25 per cent. of the population are pensioners, that effectively means that pensioners—many of whom live in difficult circumstances—will have to pay substantial increases in council tax to meet the additional burden of the concessionary fares scheme which many of them will not wish to use.
In East Dorset, it is estimated that the additional cost of the concessionary fares scheme, even in its minimalist state, will be £150,000. That probably represents an 8 per cent. increase in the council tax in East Dorset on band D and for all households, simply on account of the extra burden imposed by the Government. Then there is the extra burden of best value audit fees, which is a particularly heavy burden on the smaller and smallest councils—an issue that has been raised on both sides of the House but has not received a sympathetic response from the Government. There are something like 300 new best value inspectors, who are being funded through best value audit fees by the citizens of East Dorset and elsewhere. Franldy, it is impossible to see any benefit accruing to the people of East Dorset as a result. Dame Helena Shovelton, who used to be in charge of deciding who would run the lottery—she has given that job up—is the chairman of the—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate concerns the purpose, needs and adequacy of the special grants.

Mr. Chope: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that that is the issue with which I am dealing.
In the introduction to the annual report of the Audit Commission, which was published in July, its chairman, Dame Helena Shovelton, said:
We are committed to make sure that our Inspection Service will work with authorities to help them to seize the opportunity best value brings and achieve real improvements to the quality of local services and the quality of local people's lives.
In East Dorset, the reality is that because of the burden of the best value inspection and audit system, the council will have to cut services and increase council tax. That outcome is totally inconsistent with what Dame Helena Shovelton said would happen. Another burden has been placed on East Dorset district council for which it is not getting any additional funding. As I said, part HI of the report makes it clear that it will get only £51,647.
This is a narrow issue, but it is important. How can it be fair that a council should get no cash increase—we are not even talking about an increase in real terms—in Government support at a time when the Government are imposing major new financial burdens. As a consequence, the level of service will be reduced and there will probably be substantial increases in the council tax. As a result, an even higher proportion of pensioner households will pay more than 10 per cent. of their income in council tax every year.
The Minister said in her introductory remarks that the report would ensure stability of funding. That expression will go down like a sick joke in East Dorset.

Mr. David Drew: I will keep my remarks short so that as many hon. Members as possible may contribute to the debate. I will also try to keep them to the subject, which is narrow, given the fact that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), seemed to repeat the remarks that he made in the previous debate, but I will say no more about that.
I wish to reinforce the argument that I made in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in the previous debate, but with reference to the special grant. Fire and rescue services in Gloucestershire will face particular problems because as a result of the standard spending assessment they will not be able to access the special grants. The services work with the police and ambulance service in the county. We want a tri-service emergency centre, but it will be put at risk unless we can find some additional moneys. Likewise, we are working with the fire and rescue services of other authorities in the south-west to establish a joint training centre. Both projects require special grants from the Home Office, but will be put at risk unless we can obtain additional funds to pay our contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) will no doubt point out, if he has the opportunity, that the education standard spending assessment is inadequate. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House want the area cost adjustment to be removed because of its gross unfairness.
The sins of the father are visited on the sons and daughters; that is never more true than in local government, where the Government are increasingly

having to address, through additional direct grant, the problems that we were left with. Much as one welcomes the money, if we could sort out the formula, we would prefer to find the amounts from within local resources, so that our schools and social services could be funded more adequately without having to rely on—

Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Drew: It is only fair to other Members who want to speak that I do not give way, as I am sure my hon. Friend understands.
We need to sort out local government funding sooner rather than later. Clearly, that will not happen before the election, but I hope that soon afterwards we shall see light at the end of the tunnel—with the excellent Green Paper and the opportunities that are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) pointed out that we continue to suffer from the effects of the poll tax. Another such factor is the early retirement scam. Many of my friends took early retirement for genuine reasons—sickness or job cuts—but the Conservative Government never predicated the long-term implications of getting people off the payroll in any of their calculations. We see the effects of that in the problems with police and local government pensions; many people who left their employment for genuine reasons still have to be paid for through top-slicing. Until we can grapple with that pensions problem, we shall all be at a serious disadvantage. That is why we need to reform the formula and the funding system.

Mr. Edward Davey: Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and other hon. Members, I have concerns about the area cost adjustment and its operation in my local council—the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames—and, especially, about the need for long-term reform. This year, a short-term fix—the floors and ceilings idea—has caused hardship in many councils, especially in outer London, as the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) pointed out.
The ceiling will significantly affect my council. That is a shame because the council was hit in last year's settlement, when the new earnings survey figures—plugged into the area cost adjustment—worked against us. This year, when the new earnings survey figures would have worked in our favour, the benefit was not allowed to flow to councils such as Kingston in outer London.
I am disappointed that the Government continue to persist with the ceiling approach, because when I led an all-party delegation from Kingston council to see the Minister for Local Government and the Regions she listened politely and asked the right questions; today, unfortunately, we find that she has not acted. It is interesting that in today's Evening Standard, Professor John Howson estimates that London needs another 9,000 teachers. That is especially relevant, because the part of the area cost adjustment that is not being fed through because of the ceiling relates to the higher salaries that councils such as Kingston are having to pay to ensure that there are teachers in our classrooms.
Given such huge teacher shortages, I am concerned that the Government are pursuing that policy. I raised the issue with the Chancellor at a meeting of the Select Committee


on the Treasury. He acknowledged that London has a problem with teacher shortages, but that recognition does not appear to have fed through to the local government settlement, especially for outer London boroughs that are hit by the ceiling.
During the debate, the Minister has made several sedentary interventions. What I am about to say will please her. I welcome the fact that she did listen with regard to the homelessness issue and housing benefit. There is a point that perhaps should have been raised in the previous debate, although it is relevant to this one because it relates to "A" in the equation.
The Minister announced today that rent levels specified in the housing benefit subsidy regulations will be raised, so more housing benefit will be payable in areas where rents are higher. That will significantly help people on low incomes with housing difficulties. I see many such people in my surgery every week, so that measure is particularly welcome. In high-cost areas such as Kingston, the homeless and those in poor housing have been hit severely by the regulations, which I believe the present Government introduced as a left-over from the previous Government. This change makes it better. It certainly does not make it perfect, because Liberal Democrats would like the regulations to be abolished.
Although I welcome that change, I am concerned that this grant settlement does not help boroughs, such as mine, that are having problems with teacher shortages and with attracting teachers. Interestingly, the Kingston share of the £52 million grant is only £0.1 million. That is nowhere near its fair share. I wonder whether the criteria that have been used to share out the £52 million grant could be published, because I do not believe that they would stand up to proper scrutiny.

Mr. David Kidney: I look forward to the day when we no longer need to debate and vote on special grants—when we have a system for distributing the Government's central grant to local government that is transparent, easy to understand and, above all, fair. The Government showed the way forward by publishing a Green Paper last year, which some hon. Members have mentioned and to which I shall briefly refer.
Those who say that the Government acknowledge the unfairness of the previous system of distribution introduced by the Conservatives but have been slow to do something about it are wrong: the Government have made efforts to do something about the unfairness, injustice and disparities in distribution that that system created.
At first, the Government tried methodological changes each year. That is borne out by annexe B of the report, which says that special grants were introduced partly as a result of changes to the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments for the financial years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, among others. However, the Government found—the point was well illustrated in the previous debate by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who mentioned a change that was made in, I believe, social services that disadvantaged his council—that making piecemeal changes, even with the best of intentions, had unintended consequences elsewhere in the system because of the complexity and lack of transparency. That attempt was abandoned.
The Government made a second attempt to achieve fairness. They devised 21 more thoroughgoing options for change, and asked members of the Local Government Association whether they could reach a consensus on which option would be better than the current system. Sadly, they did not rise to the challenge. They could not agree, so that option, too, was ruled out.
Plan C was for the Government to suggest their own changes as a prelude to consultation, and they did so by publishing the Green Paper. The great interest in change among the public outside the House is shown by the fact that, as the Minister said, there have been 16,000 responses to the Green Paper—a tremendously high number. I look forward to hearing the Government's response when they have considered them all.
The elements in the Green Paper that I believe will do away with the need for special grants are, first, the introduction of a formal system of ceilings and floors, which would ensure that there were no great winners or losers in the distribution of central grant from one year to the next and would bring certainty and an ability to plan local government's finances.
Secondly, I look forward to the introduction of minimum entitlement for each pupil in education. I realise that that is too simplistic on its own. That is why the Green Paper refers to making adjustments for deprivation and for recruitment and retention. The key to those elements is preventing future Governments from dabbling in those adjustments for political reasons.
The Office for National Statistics will have an important role. It is already charged with developing ward-based statistics, which will help to establish factual deprivation figures. I know from my experience of serving on the Select Committee on the Treasury that the office is working to ensure that its figures on recruitment and retention are more accurate.
If the proposals in the Green Paper eventually form the new system, we will not need the special grants that we debate and vote on each year. We will then have a fairer system, and I will be able to look teachers and parents in the eye and say that we have a system that treats schoolchildren in Staffordshire as fairly as pupils in other parts of the country.

Mr. David Heath: In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) said that he sometimes thought it a disadvantage to have a background in local government when speaking on such matters in the House, and I agree with him. First, it creates the illusion of partially understanding the formulae used. Secondly, hon. Members find themselves making exactly the same speeches that they have made for decades past in local government and in the House, because the message does not seem to get through, and I am afraid that this subject is no exception.
This special grant report deals with the floors, not the ceilings, in the system. I can well understand why the Government think that a system of floors is necessary. In fact, it is not a new concept; previous Governments introduced safety nets—as the floors were then called—to prevent local authorities from losing money because of changes to the system. The basic unfairness of the system creates the difficulty. We argued time and again about


such matters with the previous Government. That is why I find it difficult to accept the comments of Conservative Members, who now proclaim the unfairness of the system that they invented and implemented for years.
By implementing the special grant report, the Minister is at least trying to reduce at the margins the enormous disparities thrown up by the system between the funding of one authority and another. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) in the debate because we have worked on the problem during recent months. We recognise that we are not alone and that many local authorities, such as Leicestershire, Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire and Northampton, are very badly treated under the present formula. That is especially so in the allocation of education SSAs, which are, after all, the key to county council spending. If the education SSA is wrong, it has a knock-on effect throughout the system and money has to be diverted from social services, highways maintenance and so on to keep schools going.
I cannot accept a system that produces a disparity between Somerset and a leafy London borough of £1,500 a year per child. We have only to calculate how much the accumulated £1,500 per child disparity is worth to realise what an enormous difference it makes to the funding of a secondary school. We know that the problem exists partly because the SSA formula does not take account of children's basic needs. We know that the area cost adjustment has a huge effect, which is amplified by other factors that have been introduced recently.
I shall cite as an example the area cost adjustment's effect on my own police authority. We discussed the police grant earlier today. No less than 3 per cent. of the 7.5 per cent. pre cept increase is down to the adjustments of the area cost adjustment. That is £1 million of spending that could otherwise go into policing Avon and Somerset, and another £566,000 goes on the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme.
Those sums are top-sliced. The Minister intervened elegantly on the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) when he suggested that we have a system under which the poor subsidise the poorer. She rightly said that the money is sliced from the marginal increases rather than from core funding, but that makes not a ha'p'orth of difference to authorities that do not receive their entitlement because of the ossification of the system, which has nothing to do with stability. It is about maintaining basic injustices in the system.
I am disappointed by the report because it does nothing to deal with the huge disparities between authorities and it does nothing to create an entitlement to a basic level of funding for children in authorities such as the one that I represent. After four years of this Government, I would have expected that entitlement to be in place. For years under the Conservatives, we argued that it should be, and we are bitterly disappointed with this Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to the difficulties of hypothecated funding for education authorities. That is one way in which the Department for Education and Employment tries to get round the system, but it is extraordinary that it recognises the problem but has to get round a rigid formula that is imposed by the Department of the Environment,

Transport and the Regions. It is time that the Government dealt with the problem and that our children had a fair deal from the funding system.

Mr. Tim Loughton: What a fascinating but odd debate this has been—and it is getting odder. Alas, I hazard the guess that it will not feature in the Commons sketches in tomorrow's press. Theoretically, the debate has been all about the Special Grant Report (No. 72)—a masterpiece of plain English it is not. It certainly is not a gripping and all-consuming read that is mesmerising and enthralling. I suspect that it will not reach W. H. Smith's top 10 list, even at the knock-down price of £4.10.
The first undertaking that I shall give is that the next Conservative Government will do something to simplify the nonsense that are the formulas that make up the 13 pages of the report and that have been produced all for the sake of £3 million. The two SSA reduction grants that originated under the previous Government were applied for historical reasons to the City of London, which is very sensitive to SSA changes because of its small residential population. Given that the figures were based on the census of 1991, will that arrangement continue after the new census is published this year? At what stage will that census kick in?
We are confronted with the formulas that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned. As if it is not enough to be confronted with formula B minus A over T, which extends to T(Z minus S) to ½TZ, the second formula involves B minus A over;T, C plus D plus E and T(Z minus S) and ½TZ. If that were not bad enough, the new formulas that apply to the new central supply protection grant steal the show. They refer to B minus A, but then page 13 of the report states:
3. Grant is payable if the amount M calculated under paragraph 2 is greater than zero.
4. The amount of grant is calculated in accordance with the following formula: B minus A where A and B have the same meaning as in paragraph 2.
That is all quite simple.
We understand that the formula means that 10 shire districts will supposedly benefit from the year-on-year reductions in total Government grant. Because those counties do not provide educational and social services spend, they do not benefit from the floors that we have heard so much about and to which the Minister alluded.
I readily admit that I am not always the sharpest knife in the drawer, but will the Minister explain to me—other people and the House of Commons Library have not been able to—why no fewer than 103 district authorities fit the criteria for the central support protection grant, but only 10 of them will benefit from it? They range from Brentwood to Weymouth and Portland, and include East Dorset district council, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) mentioned. What about the other 93 authorities? The list starts with Bromsgrove, which received a 0 per cent. increase in total external support. St. Edmundsbury received a 0.3 per cent. increase, Tewkesbury received a 0.4 per cent. increase and Chester received a 1 per cent. increase. The list extends to North East Derbyshire. It is not clear how those authorities will benefit, although we are assured that the central support protection grant will ensure that any


authority that does not qualify for the grant floor will none the less receive a Government grant no lower than that which it received in 2001–01. Will the Minister explain that point?
Some interesting contributions have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out that his council will, on the face of it, be a beneficiary of the CSPG. However, he told us that the extra pensioners in his constituency are a great expense for the council and that benefits such as concessionary fares, which the authority will now have to fund, are not being refunded by the Government. The hon. Member for Barnsley. East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) was concerned that his constituents had missed out, and the Minister did not allay his fears. What the hon. Member for Torbay called his dog's breakfast speech was concerned entirely with the formula of Z.
I agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) about the need for a fundamental review of the whole system. Interestingly, the 11.5 per cent. council tax increase that he foresaw is out of sorts with the Minister's figure. I agreed also with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on the inaccessibility of special grants. In my authority area, West Sussex, 72 per cent. of the extra education funding received by the county council is not for it to spend as it wishes, as it has been provided in specific grant form.
This debate has been about floors and ceilings. It is the flaws within those floors and ceilings that are yet another example of centralisation by the Government. What is the point of introducing an elaborate system of SSAs that depends on the collection of large quantities of data, if those data are subsequently ignored because they do not fit the Government's dogma? That is all part of the Government's funding fiddle.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Ms Beverley Hughes): For the past hour and a half, we have ostensibly been debating the special grant reports. Of course, those reports raise a number of other important distribution issues, many of which have been mentioned.
Two specific points were made about the special grants themselves. I shall deal first with that made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). I assure him that it was entirely wrong. The grant ensures that no council receives less on a like-for-like basis. That is the basic criterion on which 10 councils qualify. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said that the inclusion of the 10 councils reflected political bias. Had he done the most basic research, however, he would have found that they comprised one Labour council, one Liberal Democrat council and five Conservative councils. Three of them are without overall control. I fail to see how that reflects political bias towards Labour authorities. If the hon. Gentleman can identify such bias, he will have to explain it to me after the debate.
The second and main issue was the problems associated with the standard spending assessment and distribution. This is an entirely vexed question, on which the three

main parties do not agree. The problems relate not to data, as the hon. Member for Torbay alleged, but to methodology. There is no consensus on the area cost adjustment. Indeed, the whole system is complex and is neither transparent nor understandable. Some would argue that it does not take account of the different trends that apply in different places.
The previous Government failed completely to tackle any of those problems and simply reduced funding year on year. They did nothing at all about distribution.
We have instituted a fundamental review and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) pointed out, we were grateful for the large number of replies. As the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) showed, once we start debating the matter, it turns out that every Member wants different changes that would benefit his own area. I do not blame them for that, but it reflects the difficulty inherent in the issue. I am not convinced that, as one of my hon. Friends maintained, if we introduced a new system, we would completely eradicate all complaints. I think that hon. Members would still want more for their own areas.
This year, because of the huge skews produced by applying the current methodology to the data, we have introduced floors and ceilings. I am sorry that Conservatives Members do not feel that they can support that proposal. Their basic premise was of course wrong. In the previous system, under the central support protection grant, which we have debated tonight, all authorities above the minimum contributed to the minimum guarantee. That will work in the same way in the system that we have introduced this year. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said in an intervention, the main difference is that the new system is transparent. People can see what they are getting and whether they are contributing to the floor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) raised a number of issues, but I must point out that there are no restrictions on the use of the neighbourhood renewal fund. It is intended to drive up standards in the most disadvantaged areas, and provided that Barnsley demonstrates that it is hitting the targets, it can use its extra £2.7 million as it wishes.
Although distribution is important, the real issue is the overall investment in, and the commitment to, local government. I say to Conservative Members that it is this party—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) Special Grant Report (No. 72) (HC 159), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Science and Technology Committee

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.
The motion proposes that the Commons Science and Technology Committee should have the power to meet with the Lords Science and Technology Committee. In general, Committees with analogues in the Lords, such as the European Scrutiny Committee, have powers to meet with their counterparts. All Lords Committees have powers to meet with Commons Committees. In its second report last Session, the Science and Technology Committee asked that it be given the power to meet with its Lords counterpart.
I know that the motion has the strong support of the Chairman and members of the Science and Technology Committee, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) has joined us. I am pleased to move the motion to give the Committee the power that it desires.

Mr. Eric Forth: This interesting motion, which is not without its controversial elements, provides us with an opportunity to pause and consider the merits of the approach that is suggested. I confess to a feeling of unease at what I detect as a trend, which has emerged recently, and of which this is just the latest example, for joint meetings with Committees of the House of Lords.
I want modestly to praise the Minister for doing us the courtesy, as ever he does—I wish his colleagues would do the same—of coming to the House and giving us a succinct and rather elegant exposition of why he thinks the motion necessary. I have a number of questions that I want to ask him which relate directly to this seemingly innocuous motion and to the principle behind it, which is that of a joint approach. I also have a number of practical questions that are relevant at this stage.
Standing Order No. 152, which is the foundation of our Select Committee system, states:
Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments as set out in paragraph (2) of this order"—
straightforward enough, one would have thought. That applies, of course, to the Commons Select Committees, one of which is the subject of the motion. Item 11 in the table that forms part of the Standing Order shows that the Office of Science and Technology is the relevant Government Department.
We know, therefore, that the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is tasked under Standing Order No. 152 with giving its attention to the Office of Science and Technology and with examining its expenditure, administration and policy. We are all familiar with that territory, so it should not give rise to any difficulty.
However, I am mystified by the form of words used in the motion. Recently, we have dealt with motions referring to Joint Committees of the Commons and the Lords. The motion does not use that form of words. It rather intriguingly uses a different form of words and states that
the Select Committee on Science and Technology"—
of the Commons, it is taken for granted—
shall have leave to meet concurrently".
I do not want to quibble excessively or be too pedantic. That is not in my nature, as the House knows, but I am intrigued as to why the motion is framed in that way. The word "concurrently" can imply a number of different things. It can imply meeting at the same time, or meeting in the same place, or both. I am not sure that the motion is sufficiently clear to give any guidance as to what it might mean. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that when he winds up the debate.
That is the immediate difficulty—the lack of clarity for which one would hope in such a motion. The motion goes on, even more confusingly, to state that our Select Committee will meet concurrently
with any committee of the Lords on science and technology".
I confess that I am not sufficiently familiar with the way in which the other place works to know whether—[Interruption.] I am educating myself.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forth: I should be delighted.

Dr. Kumar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that he does not want to quibble. That is precisely what he is doing. He is quibbling all the way. He indulges in his song-and-dance tradition of quibbling with everything, and reads into everything far more than is meant.
Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The spirit of the motion—[Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful. The right hon. Gentleman is struggling, and I want to educate him. He could benefit from education.[Interruption.] As a member of the Select Committee, may I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the spirit of the motion was that we would try to make progress in the way that we take evidence. Rather than duplicating effort and wasting the resources of both Houses—the right hon. Gentleman never stops lecturing us about wasting resources, so I am trying to be helpful to him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be helpful to me. His intervention is too long.

Mr. Forth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). I hope that he will feel free to intervene again and again. He anticipated one of the later points that I intended to make. If he is patient, and waits until a little later in the evening, I will come to the point that he was so helpfully trying to make. I am genuinely grateful to him.


I was trying to probe the reasons for the form of words in the motion, which refers to working,
concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof'.
The flexibility that that allows is over-generous. Although I appreciate the reasons for the motion's focus on our Select Committee on Science and Technology, which we all know, love and greatly respect, the motion's open remit for concurrent meetings,
with any committee of the Lords on science and technology
whatever that means; it could mean literally any Committee—
or any sub-committee thereof",
places us in potentially difficult territory about who decides with whom the concurrent meeting will be held.
To whom will we give the remit and for what purpose? We must be clearer about that. The motion continues helpfully,
for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee"—
the wording is again less clear than I should like. I now wonder to which Committee the phrase refers. I presume that it refers to our Select Committee communicating with "any such committee". But the Committees are already meeting concurrently. In that case, why should our Select Committee seek such communication? The motion includes several confusing elements. I fear that it has been drafted rather sloppily. Indeed, I may suggest later that the Parliamentary Secretary should withdraw it and redraft it to make it much clearer.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if the two Committees—and potentially more—met at the same time, in the same place and took evidence before the public, the proceedings would be largely indecipherable to those attending?

Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. Before I go deeper into the helpful points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East raised, I want to cover the more mundane considerations that arise from the motion, and to which my hon. Friend referred.
On previous occasions when we have discussed joint or concurrent Committees—and I deal with both in the same way for the purposes of tonight's debate—we have rightly concerned ourselves with who presides over the Committee, the role of advisers and support staff and the procedures—those of the Commons or of the Lords; they are not necessarily the same—that will be followed. The quorum is crucial in tonight's debate. I am anxious to reach motion 7 because I really want to have a go at it. I have tabled an amendment on the quorum, and you will tell us later, Mr. Speaker, whether you have been kind enough to select it. I have become increasingly alarmed of late that the quorum that is set, especially for Select Committees, is inadequate to maintain their credibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the motion does not affect the quorum.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, and I regret that. I am grateful to you for pointing that out, Mr. Speaker, but I wish that the motion covered the quorum. Perhaps I should table a wee

amendment to it; I accept the blame for not doing so. However, I learn as I go along. It has taken me nearly four years, but I am getting there. I shall try to do better next time.
Let us consider the extent to which the concurrently meeting Committee will be able to commit the House or another place to travel. On whose budget will it draw? It may be assumed that such matters are easily subsumed in the word "concurrently", but one has only to consider the brief list of who presides, the procedures and the quorum—I shall not go into that—and the travel and the budgetary arrangements to perceive the difficulty into which we may fall by accepting the motion in its current ill defined, or undefined, form. None of those matters are, therefore, satisfactorily dealt with, and we need the Minister's guidance on them.
A more fundamental question was raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East in his intervention, for which I am grateful, and I shall characterise it in the following way simply to move the debate along. What added value shall we get from joint or concurrent meetings? The assumption seems to be growing, of late, that a joint or concurrent meeting is automatically better than separate meetings of the Committees of the two Houses. I want to challenge that.
I want to challenge the whole basis on which the motion is predicated, because it assumes that the Committees will produce better results by meeting concurrently. I am not sure that we have yet convinced ourselves of that. The two Houses of Parliament have traditionally different roles. The House of Commons has its elected accountability and its Members' responsibility to their constituents, and we are often told that the House of Lords is the repository of expertise that is often not available in this House. One could, therefore, argue that a fusion of those two elements would produce a better result. I am not sure that that would necessarily be the case. Whether it would be the case in the important, focused area of science and technology is another matter.

Dr. Kumar: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology are scientists, former scientists and engineers? They therefore complement the Members of the House of Lords in building up its progress on the issues.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman was trying to be helpful, but he has alarmed me considerably. If we are now faced with the prospect, as apparently we are, of a number of self-appointed experts sitting together concurrently, I shall be really worried. I was about to concede the point that some gifted amateurs from this House, with their elected accountability, and some experts from the other House, with their expertise but no accountability, might have provided added value. Now the hon. Gentleman has worried me, because he tells me that all the members of the concurrent Committee will be experts. I wonder whether there is, therefore, a real risk of a conflict of expertise.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: Here is another one who is going to help me.

Dr. Gibson: The right hon. Gentleman will remember the debate on stem cell research. He sat in the Chamber


and listened to expertise from both sides of the House. He probably also read what was said in the House of Lords on that issue. He was, I am sure, persuaded by the technical expertise and scientific excellence of the arguments put forward on the Labour Benches in explaining the issues.
The right hon. Gentleman must understand that there are sincere people in the House of Commons who have some understanding of science. We recognise his expertise, although it fails me now to describe it. Labour Members must have persuaded Opposition Members that the arguments in the stem cell research debate were worth supporting. We can take science and technology forward to ensure that the United Kingdom is foremost in that area of endeavour.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's example is a relevant one. However, there is a problem. Of course, expertise has a role to play in many debates, although one wonders how many hon. Members—particularly on the Labour Benches—who participated in the debate on the Hunting Bill have ever been on a horse or chased a fox. I do not know the answer to that, just as I do not know how much expertise they were bringing to bear.
I shall pursue the hon. Gentleman's point. I query whether it would be of the greatest value that only people with expertise could legitimately participate in such a debate.

Dr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: I will give way in a moment.
Some of the contributions made during those debates arose from passion, conviction and a sense of moral values. Therefore, my point is that we must decide the relative role that we expect the Committee to play—first in terms of expertise and/or representation and, secondly, in terms of Commons and Lords.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because there is a particular significance, which will certainly not have escaped you, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has intervened. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as long ago as 28 November 1997, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that his judgments are based not in any way on scientific evidence but on his insatiable thirst for class struggle?

Mr. Forth: Well, I am of course grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not know whether matters of class or struggle came into the hon. Gentleman's consideration of stem cell research.

Mr. Bercow: They came into his consideration of hunting.

Mr. Forth: On this matter, I shall give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.
I do not want to be diverted or deterred in any way from my central and focused purpose, which is to try to bring to the attention of the House the question whether joint or, as the motion says, concurrent, meetings of

Committees of the Commons and the Lords would give better value to the taxpayer. That is an open question that has yet to be proven. What worries me is that, time and again, we plough on with the assumption that such an approach is better. The Minister said in his opening remarks, for which I am grateful, that the Chairman of the Committee is apparently very keen on such a development, but I look in vain for the Chairman of the Committee. I do not see him.

Mr. Tipping: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Chairman sends his apologies. I know from personal discussions with him that he is extremely keen for the motion to be passed. I am sure that he will read the right hon. Gentleman's words with great interest.

Mr. Forth: Well, I am impressed—I really am—by the Minister saying that a Member of the House who is so keen on the motion sends his apologies.

Dr. Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for a Joint Committee to go to Porton Down tomorrow to consider issues of great purport to many people in this nation, and perhaps even some in his constituency, than for two Committees to undertake consideration independently?

Mr. Forth: No, I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman is making the same assertion—I shall not call it a mistake. He is simply saying, as a matter of fact, that surely it is better for two Committees to travel together and consider the same issues together. I do not necessarily agree with that proposition. That is the point that I am trying to make, although it is obvious that I shall have to labour it further to impress him and his colleagues.
I put a proposition to the hon. Gentleman and to the House: the two Committees, rather than travelling together, could sit separately and under different chairmanship, use different staffs, consider the same proposition from different perspectives and reach more valid conclusions in their different ways. If that were not the case, it would be logical to merge all the Committees of the two Houses to achieve the improvement or added value that has been suggested.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The right hon. Gentleman believes in this place passionately, but does he recall that, only a matter of days ago, the House passed by 486 votes to three a motion to establish with the Lords a Joint Committee on Human Rights? I presume that he was among the three. Against such a background, does not he think that he is a little out of touch?

Mr. Forth: Well, no. The 400 were out of touch with me. I try to be consistent in these matters and I recall that I was indeed one of the three. On human rights, I argued on a similar basis and for similar reasons that I doubted the validity of the approach, as I do in this case. It occurs to me, as it did in connection with human rights—perhaps, if anything, even more than in connection with this—that the perspective that might be brought to this matter from another place could, legitimately, be very different from the perspective from which it might be viewed here, and that therefore the two Committees might reach differing conclusions.

Mr. Christopher Chope: There is, of course, a strong argument for suggesting that the Select


Committee on Science and Technology should be part and parcel of the Trade and Industry Committee, given that the DTI is the Department in which the Committee should interest itself. Is it not significant that tomorrow there will be a debate on a Trade and Industry Committee report on space policy? Many would assume that that was a science and technology matter.

Mr. Forth: I do not want to become involved in a discussion of that kind at this stage, because I suspect that, in a sense, the question is settled by our Standing Orders, to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks. However, what my hon. Friend has said is relevant in one respect.
Let us examine the wording of the part of the motion that deals with—if I can put it like this without sounding disrespectful—the Lords end of things. It is proposed that meetings should take place concurrently with
any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof'.
In that context, my hon. Friend's point is highly relevant. Although we can be clear in our own minds about the role played at this end of the building by our Committee, governed by our Standing Orders, real doubts must arise about exactly which other Committee will "meet concurrently" with our Committee, and under what auspices and what chairmanship it will meet.

Mr. Bercow: Is it not intellectually unsatisfactory, to put it mildly, for the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to cite a much earlier vote in support of the passage of motion 6? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members, at least, subscribe to Johnson's view that right rather than fashion should prevail?

Mr. Forth: Of course I subscribe to that view; and, much as I normally admire precedent, which I think has an important role to play in our affairs, the reference by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston simply to a vote on what on the face of it seemed to be a similar matter is not in itself conclusive.[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says, from a sedentary position—I do not often report such remarks, but in this case I think it rather helpful—that it was the will of the House. Yes, on that occasion it was: as he has reminded us, 400 Members voted the wrong way and three of us voted the right way. But that concerned an entirely different matter, namely a Joint Committee on Human Rights. That, in all conscience, can hardly be seen in the same light as a very much more focused Committee on science and technology. I am sure the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would agree that such a Committee must necessarily take a very different view of things, and must have a different methodology, different procedures and different expertise.

Liz Blackman: I should be interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman sought the opinions of any Conservative members of the Science and Technology Committee before speaking tonight.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that question. I hoped that members of the Committee would take the trouble to be present.

Dr. Gibson: Where is the Chairman?

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself for a moment?
The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) made a perfectly reasonable point. I should have been happier if, following the Minister's courteous opening remarks, Conservative Committee members had been present to show their support for the motion, and to explain why they considered it to be of value. In their absence, I must speculate, and I find myself in a difficult position. I agree that this is unfortunate, and to that extent I agree with the hon. Lady. She said, quite reasonably, that the debate would have been helped by positive contributions—in addition to those of the Minister—explaining much more fully why the proposal was a good idea. If that had happened I might not have had to speak at all, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, would have helped things along quite a bit. In the absence of any Conservative Committee member being prepared to make a contribution to the debate, all we can do is to speculate, despite the fact that the Minister did his best to give a brief outline of why the motion was to be supported.

Liz Blackman: We have very little time, but given the fact—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—

'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,
That—

(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–2001 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word `Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Regeneration (Falmouth and Camborne)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

10 pm

Ms Candy Atherton: As Members of Parliament, we are in a privileged position to see the wider view of what is happening in our constituencies. That is why I sought the debate. Few are privileged to see the big picture as we do. It is worth looking at in some detail in my constituency.
Every hon. Member knows by now, I hope, that Cornwall has major structural problems in its economy. Indeed, that is one reason that we won objective 1 status nearly two years ago, but the situation is changing and it is time that the House and the wider country woke up to that fact.
In the past, my constituency boasted the richest square mile in the world, as the area basked in the warmth of a strong tin price. One hundred plus years later, some parts are among the poorest in the country. Tin mining, farming, fishing have all suffered from a massive decline in recent years.
There can be no doubt that the latter two industries still face structural changes and difficulties. There was genuine shock and dismay when the last tin mine in Europe closed at South Crofty. People saw that as the end, but life moves on. It is now time for the county to stand up and to hold its head up high because, as the song goes, "The Times They Are A-changing."
I hope to sketch out some of the ways in which my constituency is moving forward and to tell the Government that those are areas that will need help. To industry, I say, "Get involved and build for the future." To some in the county who either choose not to look or do not look, I say, "Things really are getting better. Open your eyes and see."
Let us look at some facts. Unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 33 per cent. since the general election. Last month's fall was the biggest recorded in all the Cornish constituencies. Youth unemployment has fallen by two thirds. My constituency is the industrial heartland of Cornwall. The Falmouth-Penryn and Camborne-Redruth areas both offer great potential for Cornwall's economic resurgence and are our most under-used assets.
The Government's efforts to help Cornwall have been considerable. Objective 1 status was won for Cornwall through the collective efforts of many, but critically through the intervention of the Prime Minister. Since then, the Government have committed themselves to match fund objective 1. With the involvement of the private sector, that programme could be worth up to £1 billion to the county in the next six years.
The Government have protected Cornish jobs. CompAir Holman, which used to be Camborne's principal employer, received a £5 million Government grant two years ago to help it to remain in business in the town, saving literally hundreds of jobs. Cornish Yarg cheese is produced in my constituency using local farmers' milk and employing local people. Regional selective assistance was critical in getting that scheme off the ground and the cheese on to our plates at Westminster.
Cornwall has assisted area status, an education action zone in the Redruth and Camborne area, a health action zone and record capital investment in our schools. A long list of initiatives is equipping Cornwall for the future. Only this week, the Government have confirmed an additional £3.6 million for Kerrier district council, including Redruth, Camborne, Penryn and St. Ives, over the next three years through the neighbourhood renewal fund. That provision is a recognition that the area contains some of our most deprived communities. The minimum wage and the working families tax credit have started to tackle poverty pay. That is a turnaround from the past.
Cornwall had become very used to being let down, time and time again, under the previous Tory Government. By 1997, good news had become something of a shock to the Cornish system. Indeed, the tradition in Cornwall after 18 years of Tory Government is to expect the worst. However, Cornwall has always had a much-loved and unique cultural identity, and it is now constructing a new economic identity for the future, building on that cultural heritage.
I do not believe that we should turn our back on our traditional industries—far from it. Under one recent proposal, the prime sites for mining would be identified and protected for possible use in the future, when we could be confident that the industry could be profitable again. However, over-reliance on struggling industries would be myopic. We must build on traditional strengths and adapt them for the future.
There are several specific examples of what is being done and what can be done.

Mr. Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Atherton: Yes, but very briefly.

Mr. George: Is the hon. Lady aware that, today, as I understand it, Baseresult completed its purchase of South Crofty mine, although the regional development agency had proposed compulsorily purchasing the site and not to use it for mining? Does she welcome the fact that, because of the purchase, mining may continue there in the years ahead?

Ms Atherton: I also heard in the media that Baseresult may have completed its purchase. That is obviously interesting news and will be welcomed by many people in the county. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer, as I shall deal in my speech with all the different options and opportunities to which my constituents can look forward.
This afternoon, I led a delegation of representatives from the renewable energies sector to meet the new Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, although he has barely got his feet under the table. The renewable energies industry generates more than £10 million annually in the region. The hope is to increase that to £50 million in five years, making Cornwall the green equivalent of silicon valley. That is not far-fetched.
Cornwall has a rich history in the earth sciences, including the Camborne school of mines and the hot rocks project. One of Mrs. Thatcher's great acts of vandalism was to cancel the hot rocks project. Given the world's increasing search for new and cleaner technologies,


her shortsightedness can only be marvelled at. Cancelling that project has certainly cost the United Kingdom and Cornwall dear. Fortunately, however, companies such as Geoscience—which is in my constituency and whose representatives attended today's meeting—have struggled to ensure that all was not lost.
I want everyone to be clear about this. We are talking not about more wind farms in Cornwall, but about exporting technology and renewable energies to the millions, if not billions of people around the world who are seeking new, clean power.
Another local company, Seacore—its representatives also attended today's meeting—is developing such clean power technology through its design of offshore turbines for export internationally. The Government have been supportive thus far. I hope that their support will continue so as to ensure that a genuine cluster of companies is nurtured. A new, green energy park is under construction near Redruth, and I had the pleasure of cutting the first sod in the project. The park utilises the technology of our Cornish earth sciences.
National television often uses pictures of west-end Redruth and Camborne to depict the county's run-down aspects, but they should come and see the revamped west-end drapery stores, which for a generation were left derelict and were a town eyesore. Now, it and other parts of the town are completely rebuilt, providing new homes, jobs and communities.
I received a letter from a constituent in Camborne earlier this week. He wrote:
The town's spirit has risen, and someone remarked to me that there is hardly an empty shop in the town. We are moving in the right direction.
He is absolutely right. The town centres of Redruth and Camborne are already being regenerated.
The RDA has massive plans for the Camborne, Pool and Redruth area. It is being suggested that the plans—currently out for consultation in the community—will mean that the area will no longer be classed as the poor end of Cornwall.
I am a member of the board working to fulfil the dream of a new community. It consists of representatives from local authorities, local enterprise agencies, the objective 1 fund, the Prince's Trust, local companies, the Government office of the south-west, and the RDA.
I am delighted that the RDA has chosen the area as one of the five top sites in the wider region. That is a sign, visible from Camborne to Westminster and all points in between, that a line has been drawn. The message is, "This area must be regenerated." The people deserve it.
That is not to say that I do not have concerns. Chief among them is that this proposal should be effectively managed and that it will protect Cornwall's unique heritage. I am concerned that the local and national consultants really do consult with local people, and that they talk to people at the local recreation centre, Carn Brea, of which I am a trustee.
I am proud to say that I reopened the centre on behalf of the trust, after its closure by the local council. The council wrongly believed it to be uneconomic, but today 6,500 people use the centre every week and it flourishes. If new leisure facilities are to be developed, I would argue that their development must go hand in hand with the Carn Brea trust and the local community.
There are a number of proposals for the heart of the Pool area. One company wants to mine some tin and use the mine for pumping paste backfill. We would all love to see economic tin mining back in Cornwall, but there are genuine concerns about possible pollutants from an energy plant in the heart of a community of some 45,000 people.
Another group wishes to build Cornwall's equivalent of the Eiffel tower to commemorate that great Cornishman, Richard Trevithick. Meanwhile, the RDA proposals incorporate new clean technologies, the greening of the whole area, and the possibility of thousands of new jobs. All of these schemes are out for discussion. I believe that local people, and not just those who shout the loudest, must be heard in the consultations. All the facts must be on the table so that local people can study them and make their choice.
I am talking about the regeneration of my constituency, and the focus is often on the towns. However, our villages are benefiting too. Four Lanes is a model for regeneration, as are the mining villages of St. Day—my own village—Carharrack and Gwennap. Local people are taking a lead. When Cornwall stops using such villages as landfill dumps, they will be even better.
Improvements are apparent not only in the economy and they include programmes such as sure start, which helps children of three years of age and upwards by tackling poverty before they go to school. They also include our education and health action zones, which assist our schoolchildren through to adulthood. In effect, such programmes ensure that our young people are getting the best possible start in life.
A major initiative is our plan for the combined universities of Cornwall, which builds on our current strengths at the school of mines and the Falmouth school of arts. The project has received substantial help from the Government and the regional development agency. It will be crucial in developing intellectual wealth for the county, and will generate economic wealth in years to come. I am delighted that much of the university will be sited in my constituency. The hub will be at the new Tremough campus in Penryn, while the rim or access points—such as the business school in Pool—will be elsewhere.
In the mean time, in Falmouth and Penryn, regeneration continues apace. The fabulous small boats collection of Greenwich, which is to be housed in the new Falmouth maritime museum, is growing daily. The sea will flow in and out of the building, perched, as it is, on the quay in Falmouth. I am told that it will rival the Sydney opera house. Although I feel that that might slightly overstate the case, with the magnificent Eden project up the road and the Tate at St. Ives just down the road, there is much to attract visitors to the county all year round—a fillip to the Cornish tourist industry that employs 10 per cent. of our work force.
I am hopeful that we will be able to rebuild a new Falmouth docks that will bring together companies from across my constituency involved in high-tech maritime work. Pendennis shipyard has won international acclaim as a designer, builder and renovator of fabulous yachts. It also designed and built the Lords media centre which looks like a yacht hull tipped 90 degrees.
Last week, Sir Michael Lickiss, chairman of the regional development agency, visited the Falmouth docks at my invitation and met some of those who are


developing plans for the future—a high-tech maritime park based on the historic docks. A feasibility study has just been completed, and everyone agrees that to do nothing is not an option. Again, it is our wish to develop a cluster of high-tech business and industry, creating quality, high-skill employment.
I hope that with a fair wind from the landowners, support from the RDA and the Government, and with all the companies assisting, we can rebuild the Falmouth docks to make them a maritime park that could be the envy of the world.
That is just one example of how skills and intellectual wealth can delivery prosperity for Cornwall. Many of the issues that the Government have sought to push forward—the knowledge economy, research and development, information and communications technology—offer so much to Cornwall. It is vital that support for ICT is rolled out from the existing concentration in the south-east.
Transport is critical to all these plans. I am very pleased that the Government have finally allowed progress on the vexed question of the A30, including its infamous bottleneck at Goss Moor. The rail network in Cornwall must also be developed. If our plans for the Falmouth-Penryn area are to succeed, we need to invest in the Falmouth and Truro branch line, serving the docks and the university. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to make her views known to companies proposing to take away our high-speed trains and send them to Wales. That is absolutely scandalous, and is viewed with dismay right across Cornwall.
We must also ensure that many of the ideas are not shipwrecked by over-zealous interpretation of funding rules. It is very important that funds are administered properly but, equally, that they reach local partnerships as quickly as possible and enable theory to be put into practice.
There are other risks, of course. Almost all these initiatives depend on the involvement of the south-west RDA, which the Tories—whom I notice are absent tonight—want to abolish. All our plans for the future would be under threat, as the money would not be there to regenerate these communities.
I have sketched just a few of the projects that are going ahead in my constituency. Change is happening apace. I am proud of what is happening—things really have got better. I am grateful to all those who have worked so hard to make the Falmouth and Camborne constituency a better place for all the people to live in.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing the debate and on the passionate and sincere speech that she made about partnership working by all the agencies, with Government, in support of regeneration in her constituency. She said much—it was like a helpful case study—about how Government mainstream policies such as back to work, new deal, training for young people and education for very young children can kickstart change. When Government mainstream policies and local regeneration policies are linked with regional and local

activity, and there is pressure from local Members of Parliament, they can act as a catalyst for regeneration. Significant changes can then take place.
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about Government assistance and its role in the regeneration of Cornwall. What she could not mention was the role that she has played. She is well known for the assiduous way in which she has pursued Ministers—I say that in the nicest possible way, because it is what all hon. Members should be doing. Testimony to that is her meeting this afternoon with a very new Energy Minister to discuss that industry in Cornwall. She has pursued Ministers up to the highest level to ensure that her area and Cornwall in general get as much as possible—indeed, what they undoubtedly deserve—from the Government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising what the Government can do, and I put on record the invaluable role that she has played to ensure that Ministers are aware of the problems. She has assiduously pressed again and again for resources to be allocated and action to be taken.
I too am delighted that we were able to secure objective 1 for Cornwall and Scilly, which will bring in around £315 million in the next seven years. As my hon. Friend recognised, that represents a unique opportunity to help turn around Cornwall's economy.
The programme has had an encouraging start. It has been only five months since it was launched, but even so projects to the value of £13 million have been approved. They include—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Not a penny has been spent.

Ms Hughes: Many Liberal Democrat Members do not have any experience of Government or of local administration. If they had such experience, they would know that to have approved projects to that value in five months is an incredible feat in its own right—to spend it takes a little longer, but I have no doubt that it will be done and that it will be spent wisely.
Some of the projects include, in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency, the new £4 million Tolvaddon energy park for environmental technology businesses, which is under construction by the regional development agency. In addition, projects to the value of more than £75 million are undergoing appraisal. That is an incredibly fast start to ensure that all those resources get where they are supposed to be. If all those projects were approved, 16 per cent. of the European Union funds available would have been committed to projects, which is commendable.
My hon. Friend mentioned the RDA's investment in Falmouth and Camborne. As she said, the Camborne, Pool and Redruth area is the RDA's first priority for regeneration in Cornwall—one of only five such priority areas in the south-west. Current RDA commitments in the area total about £10 million of investment, including the £4 million energy park project.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions saw at first hand during her visit to Cornwall in the summer of last year work to put the heart back into Redruth town centre, including the West End stores and Alma place projects to transform derelict buildings into social housing and a new Cornish studies centre.
The RDA is also investing £6 million in the Falmouth maritime project that my hon. Friend mentioned, to create a major tourist facility on the waterfront, including a new flagship building for the National Maritime museum and the Cornwall Maritime museum.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) rightly mentioned the RDA involvement in the area. What is the Government's attitude to the proposals to reopen South Crofty mine by Baseresult and to the RDA's opposition to that proposal?

Ms Hughes: As I understand it, Baseresult wants initially to develop a waste-to-energy plant, using the mine to dispose of the power station ash and debris, later possibly reopening part of the tin-mining operation. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are alternative possibilities for the area—one of which was proposed by the RDA. What is important is the point made by my hon. Friend: the views of local people on those alternatives should be canvassed assiduously and should form part of the overall and final decision on what may happen at South Crony.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister saying, on behalf of the Government, that no option is ruled out?

Ms Hughes: On behalf of the Government, I am saying that we will have to see what develops. As we do so, the views of local people will be an important part of the process.
I am delighted that the RDA is working in partnership with the local authorities, the Prince's Trust and others through the Camborne, Pool and Redruth partnership board—of which, I understand, my hon. Friend is also a member—to plan strategically for the future regeneration of that area. Early proposals by consultants are currently the subject of local public consultation—rightly so.
My hon. Friend mentioned the innovative combined universities of Cornwall project. The collaborative approach taken by the higher and further education institutions through that initiative for developing higher education in the county is exceptional. The CUC has recently submitted a business plan, which—as my hon. Friend knows—has been endorsed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England as a sound and realistic way forward that it and other funders can treat with confidence. I understand that HEFCE has agreed to contribute just over £2.3 million to working capital, and has responded positively in the past two years to joint bids for additional funded student places in Cornwall.
That is another example of the way in which regeneration must be conducted at several levels in order to be sustainable and to have an impact that will continue over time. Important as jobs are, regeneration is not just

about jobs or about money; it is about making sure that we invest in the people of an area, providing them with the opportunities to pursue economic development.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we announced that the Kerrier district is one of four areas in the south-west that will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund to help improve housing, raise school standards, reduce crime and improve health. That fund, too, will play an important part in the Government's and Cornwall's wider strategy for improving prosperity. There will be a total of £3.6 million, with just under £1 million—together with this year's settlement—to begin the process.
The Department of Trade and Industry has made 27 offers of regional selective assistance grant, totalling £8.5 million, towards an investment of more than £29 million by companies to create and safeguard more than 1,100 valuable jobs in west Cornwall. That is another important element.
My hon. Friend referred to the renewable energy industry in Cornwall. We welcome recognition that the sector provides opportunities for growth in Cornwall.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend also give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) for her support for the Wainstone power station application? That will mean a great deal to her constituents. I know that, in Devon, it will result in a rise in the gross domestic product per person of £180 a year. I hope that it will bring the same result to Cornwall.

Ms Hughes: I was not aware of that achievement, but it is an important ingredient in the development of the renewable energy industry in Cornwall. I am sure that the meetings that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne held today will help to develop that.
In conclusion, the Government are fully committed to working in partnership with communities in Falmouth, Camborne and Redruth to deliver economic and social regeneration. As we have heard, the area is already the focus of a range of regeneration and economic development programmes. Gratifyingly, significant progress is already evident. My hon. Friend outlined the reduction in unemployment—especially among young people. Various indicators demonstrate that progress. That shows the added value that we can obtain from partnership—where Government programmes, regional and local authority activity and especially MPs, together with local people, can effect significant change. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

Deferred Division

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 30th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 382, Noes 138.

Division No. 93]


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cawsey, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainger, Nick
Chidgey, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Church, Ms Judith


Alexander, Douglas
Clapham, Michael


Allan, Richard
Clark, Dr Lynda


Allen, Graham
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bailey, Adrian
Coaker, Vernon


Baker, Norman
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ballard, Jackie
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Battle, John
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cooper, Yvette


Beggs, Roy
Corbett, Robin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corston, Jean


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F
Cranston, Ross


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blizzard, Bob
Dalyell, Tarn


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darvill, Keith


Borrow, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brake, Tom
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Brand, Dr Peter
(B'ham Hodge H)


Breed, Colin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, John


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Dismore, Andrew


(Dunfermline E)
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Browne, Desmond
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drew, David


Burgon, Colin
Drown, Ms Julia


Burnett, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burstow, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Edwards, Huw


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Feam, Ronnie


Caplin, Ivor
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Casale, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Caton, Martin
Fitzpatrick, Jim





Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Keetch, Paul


Flint, Caroline
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Flynn, Paul
Kemp, Fraser


Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Khabra, Piara S


Foulkes, George
Kidney, David


Fyfe, Maria
Kilfoyle, Peter


Galloway, George
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gardiner, Barry
Kirkwood, Archy


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gerrard, Neil
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lammy, David


Gidley, Sandra
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Laxton, Bob


Godsiff, Roger
Lepper, David


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Leslie, Christopher


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Grocott, Bruce
Linton, Martin


Grogan, John
Livsey, Richard


Hain, Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Uwyd, Elfyn


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Lock, David


Hancock, Mike
Love, Andrew


Hanson, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Harvey, Nick
Macdonald, Calum


Healey, John
McDonnell, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McFall, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McIsaac, Shona


Hendrick, Mark
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hepburn, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heppell, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hesford, Stephen
McNamara, Kevin


Hill, Keith
McNulty, Tony


Hinchliffe, David
MacShane, Denis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hoey, Kate
McWalter, Tony


Hood, Jimmy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hope, Phil
Mallaber, Judy


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoyle, Lindsay
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Meale, Alan


Humble, Mrs Joan
Merron, Gillian


Hutton, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Iddon, Dr Brian
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


lllsley, Eric
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Milbum, Rt Hon Alan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Miller, Andrew


Jamieson, David
Mitchell, Austin


Jenkins, Brian
Moffatt, Laura


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Moore, Michael


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Moran, Ms Margaret


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
(B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Mountford, Kali


(Wotverh'ton SW)
Mudie, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Joyce, Eric
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Norris, Dan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Oaten, Mark


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)






O'Hara, Eddie
Soley, Clive


Olner, Bill
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Neill, Martin
Spellar, John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Squire, Ms Rachel


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pearson, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Perham, Ms Linda
Stevenson, George


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Plaskitt, James
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pond, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pope, Greg
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pound, Stephen
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Purchase, Ken
(Dewsbury)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Radios, Rt Hon Giles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Raynsfbrd, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robertson, John
Tipping, Paddy


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Truswell, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Roy, Frank
Tyler, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salter, Martin
Watts, David


Sanders, Adrian
Webb, Steve


Savidge, Malcolm
White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Shaw, Jonathan
(Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Willis, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wilson, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wray, James


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wyatt, Derek


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bercow, John


Amess, David
Blunt, Crispin


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Brady, Graham





Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Madel, Sir David


(Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Hurnfrey


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clappison, James
Mates, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Mawhinney, Fit Hon Sir Brian


(Rushcliffe)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Norman, Archie


Cran, James
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Ottaway, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Page, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Paice, James


Day, Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Prior, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Randall, John


Evans, Nigel
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Flight, Howard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gibb, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green, Damian
Spicer. Sir Michael


Greenway, John
Spring, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Townend, John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Trend, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Viggers, Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Wells, Bowen


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Whittingdale, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilkinson, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Willetts, David


Lansley, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington, David
Yeo, Tim


Loughton, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Luff, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.